Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bicycles (Rail Carriage)

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the transit of bicycles on trains; and if he will make a statement. [13344]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Representations have been made recently to my Department and to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising about the carriage of bicycles on trains. I am very encouraged that franchisees are being ever more responsive to cyclists' needs, simply because they want more people travelling by train.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not a good idea for cyclists to make use of the railway? I understand that the Secretary of State has an honourable record on this in connection with work that he produced when he was a Back Bencher, which involved my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, has not a new situation arisen with the railways' fragmentation? It has presented many blocks and problems, so that information to cyclists about

moving throughout the system is difficult to obtain. Pre-booking is beginning to be required. There is the costs problem and there is no official monitoring of cyclists' problems. Perhaps it is time for the Secretary of State to get on his bike and sort those things out.

Sir George Young: The Secretary of State never got off his bike. It is true that, in the 1970s, some hon. Members, including my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Acton, and I launched initiatives to make it easier for people to carry their bicycles on trains, and I think that we achieved modest success. I am happy to say that, since privatisation, there are signs that the new system is even more cycle-friendly. For example, at Paddington, a station that I use regularly, there are now many cycle racks. Franchise operators that order new rolling stock are making provision for bicycles. Great Western Railway has tripled the capacity of its high-speed trains to carry bicycles; the franchising director has invited franchisees to make it clear, when they bid, what they propose to do for cyclists; and the regulator has a role to play in ensuring that any charges are reasonable—so a brighter dawn is before those of us who like to carry our bicycle on the train.

Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the routes from Bradford and Leeds to the Yorkshire dales, particularly Airedale and Wharfedale, are among those that are of particular value to cyclists? Does he agree that it is therefore particularly good news for cyclists and visitors to the dales that the franchising director has today awarded the franchise for the service on those two lines to MTL Rail Ltd? Would it not be good to ensure that the new electric multiple units, which replace the existing class 308 rolling stock, have adequate space for cycles and for equipment carried by walkers?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reminded the House of what is happening throughout Britain: where a new franchise is let, provision is often made, through either refurbishment or the introduction of new rolling stock. I am anxious that, when


rolling stock is refurbished or new rolling stock ordered, adequate provision should be made for the bicycle. My Department recently funded the cyclists public affairs group, which is known to my hon. Friend, to draft the "Bikes and Trains" publication, which identifies opportunities for new operators and explains how they can broaden the market base by making it easier for cyclists to travel by train.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that in many cases new rolling stock has no physical capacity to carry bicycles at all? Would not the simplest, most efficient and most effective thing for him to do simply be to make it obligatory for all trains to have adequate space to carry bicycles?

Sir George Young: That is what is happening. Connex will introduce new stock on the south-eastern network which makes provision for the carriage of cycles. For Anglia, GB Railways is committed to ordering a number of new trains that must have space for the carriage of at least four cycles. The new operators are introducing rolling stock that will make it easier for people to put their bikes on trains.

Fatal Accidents (M180-A180)

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities attributable to drivers falling asleep at the wheel there have been on the M180-A180 since it was opened. [13345]

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): Such information is not normally collected by central Government, but I understand that Loughborough university carried out a study of accidents on this route over a one-year period. In that time, there were four fatalities, resulting from accidents that were related to driver fatigue.

Mr. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of seeing the Loughborough university study. Will he confirm that the case put by Professor Jim Horne in the report—I hope that my hon. Friend has a copy—is that there is clear evidence that if one travels in an easterly direction, particularly on the A180 towards Grimsby, accidents or fatalities may be caused by the fact that the road has certain conditions that cause drivers to go to sleep? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a national study using Professor Jim Horne's work in the report?

Mr. Bowis: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It shows that the accident record of the A180 is lower than the average for that sort of road, but rather higher in terms of the number of accidents involving driver fatigue while travelling in an easterly direction towards the docks. That may have something to do with the nature of the road, the length of the journey or people not complying with the advice in the highway code. I will certainly draw the attention of the Highways Agency to the matter. A national study looking at counter-measures to combat tiredness is being conducted by the same Loughborough university team, which will take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who has been in close contact with Jim Home for three years regarding two constituency

cases and his sleep laboratory, may I ask whether his funding is thought to be adequate? Will the Government interest themselves in the proposed closure of the sleep apnoea laboratory run by Neil Douglas in Edinburgh, as the two work closely together?

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising both those points. We keep closely in touch with centres of excellence in research, and the main research has been commissioned through the Transport Research Laboratory. The work started in 1992, and we expect the finished report in April this year. It certainly will be interesting to see what comes of that work. I am not aware that funding has been a problem, but I will certainly look into it.

Parking Restrictions

Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking with regard to the enforcement of parking restrictions. [13346]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): In general, enforcement of parking restrictions outside London is a matter for the police. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities may take over responsibility for on-street parking enforcement from the police on a decriminalised basis. The transfer has been a success in London, and we welcome applications from authorities elsewhere.

Sir Irvine Patnick: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that proper consultation takes place between authorities and local residents? In two areas in my constituency—Crookes and Abbeydale—little consultation appears to have taken place before the introduction of parking restrictions and road alterations, although consultation is now taking place. That cannot be the right way to function—or can it?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right: proper consultation with a view to building a consensus is important, and the Government guidelines require authorities to review all their existing restrictions before taking on enforcement to ensure that restrictions are used only where genuinely necessary.

Mr. Tony Banks: Parking restrictions in London—particularly central London—are a joke. Some local authorities are enforcing and some are not. Of those that are enforcing, some are using it as a fund-raising exercise, rather than the sensible application of regulations. There are people parking on double yellow lines who put on their hazard warning lights and think that they have dematerialised. It is time that the police stepped in and took more effective action, instead of zooming around London in large vans keeping their helmets dry. They should do something about enforcing proper parking restrictions in London so that public and private transport can move easily.

Mr. Watts: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take up his complaints with Labour London authorities which chose to have the powers of parking enforcement. As he should know, the police are responsible for enforcement


on red routes in London, but local authorities enforce everywhere else. I suggest that he talk to some of his Labour party colleagues about their deficiencies.

Mr. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend accept that in the past 20 years—thanks to the changes the Government have made in London—the number of free metered parking spaces in Westminster at any one time has gone up from 5 to 30 per cent., not only making it easier for motorists to find space, but reducing traffic and pollution by a compensating amount?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend makes an important point in his inimitable way.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with PFI projects in his Department. [13348]

Sir George Young: My Department has made excellent progress with the private finance initiative and continues to take the lead: PFI is delivering substantial investment in transport infrastructure of more than £3.7 billion over the next three years.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in many ways, north-west Kent is the epicentre of the private finance initiative. Not only do we have the leading hospital PFI at Darenth Park, but we have the channel tunnel rail link. Given both those projects and many others, does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI presents magnificent opportunities for our transport infrastructure?

Sir George Young: The Government have worked up the private finance initiative and it is successful across the range of Government Departments. My Department has played a significant part in that the bulk of the deals have come from the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and, as he knows, London and Continental Railways was appointed last February. It took over European Passenger Services and intends to achieve its main project financing and flotation by late 1997 or early 1998. The PFI also has applications for the London underground, roads and civil aviation—it has a lot of potential left.

Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when speaking to the Leeds chamber of commerce on the last day of January, mentioned the go-ahead for the Leeds supertram. What private sector contributions have been made to that project? Can the Secretary of State give more details of the reality behind the Chancellor's comments? Can he assure the House that there will be a start in obtaining funding for that scheme in advance of the need for fresh parliamentary provision to pursue it?

Sir George Young: I was in Leeds recently and I took the opportunity to talk to representatives of the local authority and others about the Leeds supertram. It is an important project. The difficulty at the moment is that the amount of private sector contribution is not as high as the sponsors would have liked. If we are to make progress

with the scheme, which has potential, it is important to drive up the private sector contribution so that the project becomes more affordable within my Department's baseline. I am conscious of the deadline in the relevant legislation.

Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the reports over the weekend about the franchising of the west coast main line, can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect a formal announcement, instead of information being leaked out through the press?

Sir George Young: The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising announced on Friday night that a preferred bidder had been identified. I hope that that deal will be finalised in the next few weeks; we will then see whether the benefits of franchising that we have seen in the rest of the country can be extended to that most important line.

Mr. Andrew Smith: If private finance is serving transport so well, will the Secretary of State tell us why he will not bring forward proper public-private partnerships for the London underground to attract investment now, in place of the running farce of his privatisation plans, which would sell public assets cheap and mean no new investment for years?

Sir George Young: The whole House knows the Labour party's policy on privatization—the Labour party is against it until it happens and then conveniently forgets about it.
On private finance, the hon. Gentleman must know that we are pursuing with London Underground a range of private finance deals—my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London rightly reminds us about the Northern line trains on every occasion. The three other major projects are power supplies, an upgraded ticketing system and the communications network—some £500 million of private finance initiative. It is therefore not the case that the Government are not driving that forward with the underground.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the pleasure felt in Scotland at the announcement of the PFI projects for the air traffic control centres. When is the second centre likely to go ahead?

Sir George Young: The bids are still being discussed and, following consultation with the airlines, we expect to be in a position to announce the outcome in March.

London Transport (Finance)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from London Transport on the potential consequences of the Government's reduction in funding for London Transport for the financial year 1997–98. [13349]

Mr. Bowis: There has been no reduction in planned Government funding for London Transport's core business or for the Jubilee line extension for the financial year 1997–98.

Mr. Hughes: If there is to be no reduction in funding, why is London Transport suddenly making it clear that at


its meeting later this week it may well say, for example, that the east London line cannot open again for two years and that it will have to stop some of the major works programmes that are scheduled in its budget? Will the Minister give a direct answer to the question that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked the Secretary of State? Why does he not listen to the one representation above all others made clear by the chairman of London Transport—that all London Transport wants is to be -allowed to borrow from the private sector? It does not want to be privatised and does not mind who owns London Underground, but wants to be able to have public and private money and to be allowed to get on with the job.

Mr. Bowis: That, of course, is precisely what it is getting. It is astonishing that all that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks for the Labour party, can do is criticise every time we invite and encourage private sector money to come into the underground system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) ought to know better than to peddle rumours on what may or may not be decided at some future meeting, when he knows perfectly well that, if he starts to talk up the possibility of services being delayed, the people who will be worried are his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I walked the course of the tunnel to which he is referring on the east London line recently and saw the work that is going on. It is forging ahead, as indeed are the links to, and the Jubilee line extension through, his constituency. He has pleaded for those over the years. Is it not time that he said thank you and stopped whingeing?

Mr. Dykes: Is not the Minister right in saying that, instead of being criticised and knocked all the time, London Underground management should be strongly praised for their remarkable performance in providing the world's biggest underground network, despite the pressure on finances? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Jubilee line, which goes to my constituency, will have a service every two minutes once the modernisation and the link to docklands are achieved? Is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) right to say, however, that ownership is secondary to adequate investment?

Mr. Bowis: Ownership and investment may go hand in hand. My hon. Friend is right: enormous achievements are in progress for London Underground through investment. The biggest investment is the £2 billion-worth for the Jubilee line, which includes partnership with the private sector—it is the biggest construction project in Europe. He is also right to draw attention to other work, such as the Central line modernisation and the refurbishment of trains; more than half of London's rolling stock is being refurbished and, as we know, the Northern line is not only getting new trains but its structures are being refurbished. A tremendous amount is going on and it is down to the partnership that we have successfully introduced. We are now looking ahead to find out how we can extend that in the future.

School Transport

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children travelled to school by means other than private car in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [13350]

Mr. Bowis: It is estimated that, on average, about 5.7 million children aged five to 15 travelled to school by means other than private car during the period 1993 to 1995. Figures are not available for 1979.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Staffordshire county council is being asked to pay an exorbitant 85 per cent. increase on the contract price for the school bus service for the coming year? Bus prices were supposed to fall following deregulation, so will he investigate why that price is rising and whether cartels are being formed by bus companies? We do not want even more children to go to school by car.

Mr. Bowis: I certainly cannot comment on a particular contract between a local authority and a bus operator. The great advantage of privatisation and deregulation is that there is a greater choice, and if the authority is not satisfied with one company, it can go to another. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the measure that I announced this morning: the extension of safety measures for children travelling on minibuses and coaches. From today, seat belts will have to be installed in all such post-1988 vehicles. That is a good step forward on road safety, but we want strongly to encourage children to use public transport and bicycles, and to walk.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited my constituency on Friday and saw, in Southover school, the preparation of posters to encourage walking to school. Will he report to the House on the success of that initiative, which encourages what must be the best way for children to get to school, saving fuel and helping the environment?

Mr. Bowis: I am not able to give an update on the Southover experiment, but it is one that I hope will be emulated throughout the country. We want routes to be designated by planning authorities, engineers, local education authorities and schools that make it sensible and safe for children to walk to school. It is no good encouraging them to walk if the routes are not safe. The routes must be signed and well lit, and obstacles and places from which people might jump out need to be removed. I formed, and chair, a walking strategy group that is examining carefully ways to encourage more walking and safe walking; that certainly includes walking to school.

Mr. Dafis: Are not strategies to enable children to go to school by means other than private car encompassed in the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill? I congratulate the Minister and the Government on allowing the Bill to have a Second Reading, and I anticipate that it will have a fair wind. Would not the best way to ensure that the Bill works be to have targets, including UK-wide targets, for the reduction of road traffic? What are the Government's thoughts on the matter?

Mr. Bowis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the Government for encouraging the progress of that


Bill, which had all-party support. The Bill is based on local targets, and that fits neatly with the principles of our transport Green Paper, which encouraged such schemes and gave examples of how they could be run. National targets would be unwise and unworkable, because what is right for a rural area is not necessarily right for a city centre. One has to consider each area according to its needs.
We want to encourage more children to walk or cycle to school, given that of the rush-hour traffic about 17 per cent. nationally, and 25 per cent. in London, is accounted for by mothers taking children on short journeys to school. Already, 74 per cent. of children go to school by means other than private car, and we want to increase that figure still further.

Chiltern Railway

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the director of Chiltern Railway to discuss the quality of service provided to passengers. [13351]

Mr. Watts: I would be delighted to meet representatives of Chiltern Railway to congratulate them on consistently beating the exacting punctuality and reliability standards required by their passengers charter. Chiltern's passengers are clearly enjoying the fruits of privatisation.

Mr. Lidington: May I invite my hon. Friend to join me in the near future for a journey on the Chiltern line through my constituency, which would enable him to appreciate at first hand both the success of Chiltern Railway in attracting ever more passengers to use its service and the need to encourage Railtrack to work with the company to provide a dual track on the stretch of line north of Princes Risborough in my constituency, which would both benefit commuters travelling from Buckinghamshire and allow for much faster journeys along the Chiltern line between London and Birmingham?

Mr. Watts: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to join him on a journey on the Chiltern line.
On track improvements, I understand that the franchising director is willing to consider the proposition of M40 Trains that the investment costs of doubling the track should be assimilated into track access charges and has invited Chiltern Railway to submit informally a draft business case.

Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that the managing director of Chiltern Railway has stated that, because he has only a seven-year franchise, it is impossible for him to justify purchasing more than four new 100 mph trains, which means that he cannot provide an hourly service between London and Birmingham? Is it not time that the franchising director recognised the needs of the travelling public and stopped letting franchises so short that proper investment is impossible? For the benefit of us all, will he remind the franchising director that we had thought that the purpose of privatisation was to enable rational investment, not to create more constraints than existed before?

Mr. Watts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so ill informed about the process of franchising and the

substantial number of rolling stock orders that have been placed, in return not only for 10 or 15-year franchises but for franchises of seven years. Indeed, Chiltern Railway was the first private franchise operator to place an order for new trains. This morning, the franchise for Regional Railways North-East was awarded, with a commitment to replace the class 308 rolling stock that serves the area north-west of Leeds with 16 three-car electric multiple units. I am sure that Madam Speaker will not permit me the time to do so, but I could reel off other examples that prove the hollowness of the hon. Gentleman's case.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost of rail privatisation. [13353]

Sir George Young: In the six years since 1990–91, the following costs will have been incurred in restructuring, privatising, franchising and regulating the new railway industry: Department of Transport, £91.7 million; British Rail and Railtrack, £417.2 million; and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and Office of the Rail Regulator, £121.1 million. Those costs represent some 2 to 3 per cent. of total railway industry turnover over that six-year period. They are far outweighed by the proceeds of more than £5 billion that the Government have received from privatisation.

Mr. Grocott: That is a staggering waste of public money, and an incomplete list. Why did the Secretary of State not include the £450 million of consultancy and other fees involved? Why did he not mention the train leasing companies, valued at £3 billion but sold for £1.8 billion? Cannot the Government understand the anger people feel about the sale of priceless national assets such as the rail network, which was built for the most part with picks and shovels owned by us all? As soon as the Government got their grubby hands on the assets, they were sold off at knockdown prices to the few at the expense of the taxpayer.

Sir George Young: That was the same speech that we heard 10 years ago when the Government privatised British Airways. We heard the same diatribes from Opposition Members at every privatisation. Every privatisation has incurred some up-front costs. We believe that they are justified by the enterprise, investment and improved service for customers. Exactly the same arguments apply to British Rail.

Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend welcome nostalgia that harks back so lovingly to the days of the British Rail sandwich, the mass closure of stations and lines, the wrong snow and the wrong leaves on the track: the standing national joke that was British Rail, notwithstanding the good work done by many? Will he reassure my constituents that he will travel on Midland Main Line so that he can see the excellent work that has been done and the plans that are in hand to increase the number of trains to allow a half-hourly service from London to Leicester, and appreciate the 4 Sight fare, which is finally encouraging people off the M1 and into the trains?

Sir George Young: People outside will contrast what they have just heard from my hon. Friend with what they heard from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that we are already seeing improvements in punctuality and reliability as a result of franchising. The long-term savings from privatisation will be substantial; after seven years, the subsidy for the 20 franchises that we have let will be less than one third of that required by British Rail in 1995–96. We are, therefore, getting a better deal for passengers, at less cost to the taxpayer.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the Secretary of State a little frightened of being struck down for the marvellous interpretations of the figures that he manages to give the House? Is not the reality that under some of the new franchises, the old slam-door stock, which is known to be dangerous, is being brought back into operation, painted a new colour and presented as a new service? Is it not true that taxpayers will be paying more after the end of the right hon. Gentleman's machinations, having lost all the assets, than at any other time? Would not it occasionally become the Conservative Government if they just admitted that, in the most brutal and panicky fashion, they have handed bars of gold to all their colleagues in the City in exchange for a worse and unacceptable standard of transport?

Sir George Young: The party that needs to admit that it got it wrong on privatisation is the Labour party, not the Conservative party. As a result of franchising, we are witnessing a £1 billion investment in new rolling stock. There is no way that that sort of investment could have been achieved had the railways remained in the public sector—not under this Government and not under an alternative Government supported by the hon. Lady. We are driving up investment to a far higher level than would have been sustained had the railways remained in the public sector.

Mr. Garnier: When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the slam-door rolling stock that has been painted a new colour, did not my right hon. Friend think of new Labour? Will he ask his Department to cost the amount that the privatised Railtrack and privatised franchise companies will be investing in the railways in the next few years? Were that money to come from central Government funding, how much would that cost the British taxpayer?

Sir George Young: The figure for Railtrack is £8 billion spend over five years and the figure for rolling stock investment, which I have just given to the House, is £1 billion. That investment is not coming out of the public sector, and it no longer has to compete with funds for health, education and law and order. The public sector constraint has disappeared. As with other privatisations, railway investment has been driven up fast after privatisation.

London Underground (Privatisation)

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out concerning the practicability of privatising London Underground. [13354]

Mr. Bowis: We are examining whether the benefits of privatisation can be extended to London Underground. We shall announce our conclusions once that work has been completed.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that there would be a further disbenefit to London from the further disintegration of public passenger transport? Is he not aware that London Transport, the pride of the world's transport systems, was introduced by Herbert Morrison in a Bill in this place? It was initially passed by a Labour Government and passed again by a Conservative Government in 1933. Would not privatisation be disadvantageous to Londoners because, by order, public property would have to be disposed of at a knock-down price? Londoners would also have to continue to pay taxes to subsidise not just the natural subsidy that must be paid, but the profits of the operator. That might conceivably be disadvantageous to the Conservative party at the election.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of history. I think that he will recall that much of the London underground started as projects of private railway companies, which put the necessary Bills through the House—as did those responsible for the main line rail services. As I said in my initial answer, we are looking carefully to see whether the benefits of privatisation could sensibly apply. If they did, all the relevant requirements and guarantees—for example, those on fares, the levels of service, travelcards, concessionary fares and so on—would have to be included in a Bill .
If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the advantages of privatisation, he need look no further than the privatised railway companies where the number of complaints has been falling, passenger numbers are going up, and reliability, punctuality and new investment are improving. That is certainly something of which we need to take note.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if London Transport were to be privatised, a regulator would ensure minimum standards of service, maximum levels for fares and the continuation of the concessionary fares scheme which is so vital to pensioners across London?

Mr. Bowis: Leaving aside the detail of regulators and so on, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we would not proceed with a privatisation proposal that did not ensure exactly the reassurances that he and, I think, the majority of Londoners want. That would be in stark contrast to anything that I have heard so far from the Opposition about their policies, which would give no new investment, no new lines and no new money to London's transport services.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Do the Government intend to make any detailed departmental announcement to the House regarding their impractical and deeply unpopular proposals to privatise London Underground, or will such a statement emanate, as has been reported,


from Conservative central office? If it were the latter, would that not constitute a misuse of civil servants by their drafting party political dogma, demonstrating the Government's gross abuse of dedicated public servants whose duty, first and last, is surely to the British people and not to the chairman of the Conservative party and his propaganda machine?

Mr. Bowis: What a load of nonsense. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the public servants who work for the Government of the day and who work to enable them to propose sensible and workable schemes. The hon. Lady is quick to dismiss a proposal that has not even been announced yet; I suggest that she waits, although I can understand her anxiety for it to be introduced quickly. She now recognises—or, if she does not, at least her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) now recognises—that privatisation has brought benefits in many parts of the transport system and she wants to see whether we have proposals to enable those benefits to be available to London's underground system.
The hon. Lady is impatient for our policy, which is based on a record of investment unequalled since the war. She should be aware that we, too, are impatient—for more details of her policy because they have trickled out, piece by piece by piece. We have had the triple whammy for Londoners of Labour's London transport policy: first, no more money, secondly, no new lines and now a utilities tax on London's buses.

Rail Privatisation

Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the performance of the train operating companies since privatisation. [13355]

Mr. Watts: My Department and the franchising director have received 241 letters about the performance of franchised services since franchised operations started, which for some services is now over a year ago.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend contrast the reaction following privatisation with the doom and gloom that we heard before privatisation? Are we not starting to see a steady stream of investment and improvement in the railways? All the services are being maintained at least at the level that existed before privatisation and we have the prospect of improvements in track investment—not only the investment that Railtrack has just announced for the West Anglia line serving my constituency, but investment all around the compass.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right and, to put those 241 letters into context, those same franchise services will have carried 510 million passengers over the last year. He is right to draw attention to the substantial improvements in services that are being delivered, such as West Anglia Great Northern, which serves his own constituency, and the commitment to introduce a third Stansted skytrain service per hour when necessary to accommodate rising demand. It is a story of new rolling stock, more services for passengers and services being maintained at least at their level before privatisation—and all at substantially lower cost to the taxpayer. It is a double win for passengers and taxpayers.

Mr. Bradley: How many of the representations that the Minister has received from the public relate to the chaos

in customer information? Does he accept the view expressed by the Rail Regulator in his recent report that he expects the new customer information system to
Do much better than it is doing today in providing information about railway services"?
Is the Minister satisfied with the fulfilment of obligations imposed on private rail operators to provide passengers with details of the cheapest fares and the most rapid journey times available, including those on fares and times relating to competing companies?

Mr. Watts: The last time I was asked a question regarding complaints about passenger information, the answer was 12 complaints from genuine members of the public. Unlike organisations that make bogus complaints, most passengers wishing, for example, to travel to the west country would not go to King's Cross to obtain information on services. On Tuesday 4 February, the first anniversary of the Great Western franchise, I opened the new telephone inquiry bureau in Cardiff, which has expanded capacity and new high-tech equipment and which is fully equipped to give impartial information—a licence condition for all rail operators.

Road Embankments (Landscaping)

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to improve the landscaping of motorway and dual carriageway road embankments. [13356]

Mr. Watts: Existing guidance on the landscape treatment of new schemes is set out in the "Good Roads Guide" and is kept under constant review. New guidance on the landscape management of roadside planting is in preparation. Landscape treatments were addressed recently in the Highways Agency's environmental strategy document, "Living with Roads".

Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that even more should be done to improve the landscaping of embankments along our motorways and dual carriageways, and that we can learn a great deal from schemes that have been completed in other countries? Specifically, will he ensure that the embankments along the new motorway sections of the Al are imaginatively landscaped with trees, shrubs and features? Moreover, will he instigate a competition among architects, landscape designers and sculptors to redesign the approach road from Heathrow into the capital city so that we can at least impress our visitors? It would be a stimulus for sculptors to put some of their work on public display.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tree and shrub planting along the A 1(M) Walshford-Dishforth improvement section has started this planting season. The remaining tree and shrub planting will take place as soon as possible following completion of the remaining engineering works. We take special care to choose native species of trees and shrubs to enhance the landscape through which our roads are built.
Regarding the approaches to London, my hon. Friend will have noticed significant work on the A4 corridor between Chiswick and Hammersmith, and I invite him to accompany me or my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to inspect those works.

Rail Freight (Yorkshire)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the transportation of freight in Yorkshire by rail rather than road; and if he will make a statement. [13357]

Mr. Watts: The key to the revival of rail freight is privatisation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but it is a fact that the amount of freight carried by rail declined steadily throughout the years of state ownership, but that it has recently started to increase. The new private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway. Meanwhile, we will continue to make available grants to encourage the shift of freight from road to rail.[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about Yorkshire.

Mr. O'Brien: is the Minister aware that the rail freight terminal serving Yorkshire and the northern region is in my constituency? It is a key terminal, linking the Yorkshire region with towns in the European Community. The mode of travel for freight is now such that we can introduce a speedy, efficient, door-to-door container service from Wakefield to towns in Europe.
Is the Minister aware of the differences between the piggyback consortium and Railtrack concerning the rail gauge enhancement and of the difficulties that those differences are causing? What will he do to knock heads together so that we can get that system into operation? If the Euro-terminal in my constituency is to succeed, the service must be operating efficiently. Will he ensure that the enhancement of the rail gauge is not put on the back burner or delayed, creating difficulties in getting the terminal operating from my constituency?

Mr. Watts: I am well aware of that excellent new facility, because I took a close interest in the provision of assistance for it from Government funds.
We have appointed consultants to monitor the work undertaken by Railtrack on the piggyback enhancement proposals so that we shall be ready to make a rapid decision should it apply for a freight facilities grant to contribute towards the enhancement. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that some piggyback services can already start to operate commercially because of the development of the spine wagon, which I launched at Rosyth at the end of last year. He will also have noted that English, Welsh and Scottish railways has been in discussions with Milk Marque about the resumption of milk trains using piggyback wagons to carry the tanker trailers.

London-Tilbury-Southend Line

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of services provided on the LTS line to Southend and Shoeburyness since privatisation. [13358]

Sir George Young: The services provided on the LTS line have improved significantly since the franchise, which is operated by Prism Rail plc, commenced operation on 26 May last year. More trains are being run, and reliability and punctuality have improved.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the previous management, the service to Southend, where I live with my family, was so deplorable and appalling that it was widely known as the "misery line"? Is he also aware that the job applications of many people in Southend, some of whom I know, to work in London were refused because those people depended on the LTS line to travel to London? In those circumstances, would he be willing to offer his sincere congratulations to the new management? Will he, in all sincerity, seek an assurance from all the parties in the House that, irrespective of who wins the election, there will be no going back to the bad old days?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend speaks for his constituents when he recognises that, following our introducing the passengers charter in 1992, train service performance is at an all-time high. That is good news for his constituents, and good news for all who use that railway.
Under the franchise, two thirds of the rolling stock must be replaced with new rolling stock, and the other third with more modern rolling stock. A new station is being built at West Ham, and £14 million is being invested in new security arrangements. Interestingly, there has been a 66 per cent. fall in the number of assaults on passengers since the franchise was taken over. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome that improvement.

Traffic (M65-A56)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the amount of traffic that will transfer to the M65–A56 after November 1997 from the M62. [13359]

Mr. Watts: No assessment has been made of the amount of traffic that may transfer to the M65–A56 from the M62 upon completion of the M65 Blackburn southern bypass. However, completion of the M65 will result in a 10 per cent. increase in traffic on the existing M65 immediately east of Blackburn.

Mr. Prentice: Is that not an absolute disgrace? Many motorists will look for an alternative means of getting to the north-east from the M6, and they may use the M65-A56 in my constituency. Does the Minister understand the tremendous concern of people in Colne that thousands of vehicles will be dumped on their doorstep? The Government have done absolutely nothing about trunking the A56, which could offer those people some comfort. When is the Minister likely to undertake a general review of the trunk road network because at the moment the silence is deafening?

Mr. Watts: I am aware of the concerns in Colne to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least because I had an opportunity to discuss them with local councillors when I visited the constituency at the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I undertook that once the M65 Blackburn


southern bypass was completed, we would monitor traffic flows, and that I would keep an open mind about whether a case could be made by the local highway authority for further trunking of the local road network. It is sensible for us to consider such possibilities in the light of evidence, rather than on the basis of speculation.

Mr. Fabricant: Is it not the case that despite the Government's £6 billion road programme, traffic in the Pendle area will be reduced by the introduction of the west coast main line, which will considerably shorten journey times between the north-west, Birmingham and London? Would not the west coast main line, which will encourage trade in the north-west, be jeopardised by a Labour Government, who have sworn not to see the programme through?

Mr. Watts: I share my hon. Friend's confidence that the substantial improvements to the rail network and rail services will help to provide a solution to the problems of congestion on our road network. My hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that Labour would rather spend taxpayers' money on renationalising Railtrack than on carrying out sensible improvements to the entire transport infrastructure.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Drugs

Dr. Spink: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy on the misuse of drugs. [13374]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government's policy remains that set out in the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", which was published in May 1995. We are determined to sustain a vigorous approach to law enforcement in reducing the supply of illegal drugs, while taking effective action to reduce the demand for drugs among young people and providing accessible treatment to reduce health risks. That strategy is being actively carried forward at the local level by the 105 drug action teams in England, with parallel arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that the Government have taken and, indeed, that he has taken to tackle the evil of drugs in our society. Did he see the programme about the dangers of drugs in south-east Essex and note that drugs destroy the lives of our constituents in Essex? Will he join me in welcoming the Crimestoppers initiative and the say no and phone—SNAP—initiative, which encourages youngsters to turn the tables on the evil people who push drugs by giving information to the police on the 0800 555111 telephone number which they can use confidentially?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I did not manage to see the programme, but my office is obtaining a video and I hope to watch it. There is no doubt that the results of the SNAP campaign have been striking. I hope that that effort, continuing as

part of the general Crimestoppers campaign, will be pursued. I strongly commend my hon. Friend's support for it in south Essex.

Mr. Rooker: May I take this opportunity to offer the Opposition's congratulations on the work that the Leader of the House has done in chairing the important Cabinet Sub-Committee? From recent meetings that I and some of my colleagues shadowing other Departments have had, we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution and non-gimmicky approach. The work is treated very seriously outside the House and will be continued by Labour following the general election.

Mr. Newton: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, and for the assurance that he gave, although I do not anticipate the eventuality.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to activities to discourage people in the music industry from making statements and acting in a way that encourages the consumption of drugs among young people, and continue the Government's support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, which is going through the other place and which we hope will soon become law?

Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's continued support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). I note also the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), with which I have a great deal of sympathy and on which he has recently received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Non-Sitting Fridays

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of non-sitting Fridays. [13375]

Mr. Newton: Under Standing Order No. 11A, there are 10 constituency Fridays, on which the House does not sit, in each Session. Those Fridays are treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating periods of notice, and on them hon. Members may give notice of questions and of amendments to Bills between 11 am and 3 pm. The Government have undertaken to use their best endeavours to avoid taking highly contentious business on Thursdays, especially those that fall before constituency Fridays.

Mr. Barnes: Has the Lord President of the Council noticed the impact that non-sitting Fridays and the business generally dealt with on Fridays has had on Thursdays? The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the subject. If he compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday with that on a Thursday, he will notice that the Chamber is only half full on a Thursday. There is no difference between a Tuesday and a Thursday—the Prime Minister is equally boring on both occasions, so that cannot be the reason. The difference


must involve non-sitting Fridays and their impact on Thursday's business. The House now works virtually a three-day week.

Mr. Newton: Leaving aside the characteristically tendentious second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that the basis on which the Jopling proposals were put to the House was that if constituency Fridays were to be sufficiently beneficial to those who sought them, business on Thursdays would have to be kept light. The non-sitting Fridays have been disproportionately

beneficial to the Opposition owing to the greater geographical distance from the House of many Opposition Members' constituencies.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no points of order until after the statement. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we are about to hear an important statement.

Ashworth Hospital

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, I should like to make a statement about action being taken to address the allegations involving the personality disorder unit at Ashworth hospital in Merseyside. The unit comprises six wards, with 115 patients, within the total population of Ashworth hospital of 473 patients.
Hon. Members will be aware that last Friday I instituted urgent action to address the very serious situation that had been brought to my attention in the preceding few days. In October last year, Stephen Daggett, a patient at Ashworth hospital, made a number of allegations, including the misuse of drugs and alcohol, financial irregularities, the availability of pornographic material, and possible paedophile activity involving a child visitor within the personality disorder unit.
I am advised that the hospital began investigations at that time and that a subsequent ward search on 17 January found a large amount of pornographic material. Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the personality disorder unit were unfounded.
On 28 January, the Home Office received a letter from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) enclosing a 60-page dossier setting out the detail of Mr. Daggett's allegations. The dossier was passed by the Home Office to my Department.
On 31 January, police visited the home of a former Ashworth patient who had continued to be a frequent visitor to the hospital. Following that action, a child has been taken into the care of the local authority under an emergency protection order.
In light of the allegations made by Mr. Daggett and of other evidence that has recently become available, I made three announcements on Friday of last week. First, the hospital has suspended three members of staff, including the chief executive. An acting chief executive was appointed with immediate effect. He is Mr. Erville Millar, chief executive of Lambeth Health Care NHS trust, who has a strong background in mental health services. I can further inform the House this afternoon that the hospital has today suspended a member of its medical staff.
Secondly, I established on Friday a statutory inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to review the clinical policies and the management of the personality disorder unit at Ashworth hospital. The inquiry will be led by His Honour Judge Peter Fallon QC, a recently retired senior circuit judge. A section 84 inquiry has the power to summon witnesses and to take evidence on oath. The inquiry will determine how and on what terms it takes evidence. It will also be for the inquiry to ensure that its work does not compromise continuing police investigations or possible criminal proceedings, but I would expect it to report within a year. That report will be published.
The terms of reference for the inquiry will be published as soon as possible. They will make it clear that, as it is activities within the hospital's personality disorder unit that have caused recent concern, the inquiry should focus on the policies, management and clinical care provided by

that unit. The inquiry will, however, also wish to follow up any wider questions that are necessary to the proper consideration of the issues.
The third announcement I made on Friday was on the alleged involvement of a child. The chief inspector of social services, Sir Herbert Laming, has asked the local authority concerned for a full report on the handling of the case by its social services department. I will decide, in the light of that report, whether further action needs to be taken.
The allegations that have been made about Ashworth hospital are extremely serious, and the public are entitled to reassurance on two counts. First, Ashworth hospital must be properly managed and must provide a high level of security for the benefit both of patients and of the public at large. Secondly, the hospital must also ensure that its patients receive a high standard of clinical care. The action that I announced on Friday is directed at the achievement of both those objectives.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and his action in setting up the inquiry under Mr. Fallon. I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for her action, on behalf of her constituents, in ensuring that the terrible allegations were brought to light and investigated.
The revelations are shocking. Equally disturbing, however, is the fact that the alleged pornography trade and paedophile activity could have gone on undiscovered in a hospital that has recently already been subject to a fundamental and far-reaching inquiry, under the chairmanship of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. That inquiry was to have led to the introduction of a new complaints procedure, 24-hour nursing across the hospital, and an independent patients' advocacy service. I understand that Ministers were also to monitor the hospital's performance in acting on the inquiry's recommendations, through the so-called "accountability review process". The new allegations illuminate the failure of any effective accountability in the hospital.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House when allegations related to this inquiry were first made to any party? Were the allegations—or allegations on related matters to do with Ashworth hospital—reported at any earlier time, before 28 January, to the Secretary of State, to his predecessor or to any Minister; or to the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board, to the Ashworth hospital board or to the Mental Health Act Commission? If so, what action was taken in each case?
What visits were paid to the hospital by Ministers or by any of the bodies I have mentioned between October, when the allegations were first made by Mr. Daggett, and receipt of the dossier submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax to the Secretary of State? What conclusions, if any, were drawn from those earlier visits? Were unannounced visits made to the hospital by the commissioning board in the second half of last year? If not, why not, given Ashworth's history? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the allegations expose the dreadful inadequacy of the monitoring systems which are supposed to ensure safety at high-security hospitals?
As for the future, we welcome the inquiry, but we hope that it will be held in public. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the inquiry will deal with the


hospital's chronic staff shortage—which has come to light only because of the dreadful allegations? Does he accept that the gagging of staff, which was introduced by the Government, has made it more difficult for such allegations to come to light? Will he now join Labour in a commitment to end the gagging of staff in the national health service?
After yet more allegations about abuse and depravity in a special hospital, will the Secretary of State also establish an additional and separate inquiry to examine the appropriate treatment and custodial arrangements for people suffering from personality disorder, as part of the wider review called for by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. John Reed into the future of the three large special hospitals as appropriate institutions for the care of dangerously mentally ill people?
We do not doubt the seriousness with which the Secretary of State has taken these allegations since they were brought to his attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, but perhaps he needs to be reminded that the people of Britain want a Secretary of State for Health working on health and not devolution, fighting for patients and not the Tory party leadership.

Mr. Dorrell: The Blom-Cooper inquiry made a number of recommendations, all of which except one were implemented. I was on a radio programme with Sir Louis on Saturday morning when he was good enough to acknowledge that, as a consequence of the recommendations that he had made, there had been substantial changes in the regime at Ashworth, changes that he welcomed and which he said reflected the burden of his report.
The only recommendation of the Blom-Cooper report that we did not implement was that we should put an end to the use of seclusion in special hospitals. We stated at the time that we did not intend to accept that recommendation because we felt that it was not possible to run hospitals of that nature while eschewing ever the use of seclusion. Every one of the other recommendations of the Blom-Cooper report was implemented. I shall return to this, because there is an important lesson in the fact that we implemented all but one of Blom-Cooper's recommendations, which we should keep in mind now.
The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) asked when the allegations were first made. The answer is that they started to circulate in the press in the autumn of last year. It is precisely because the advice and information relating to the allegations and coming to the Department of Health from the hospital now appears to suggest that adequate knowledge was not then being passed on to the Department that we have made the changes that I announced on Friday—the suspension of the manager and the establishment of the inquiry to ascertain exactly what happened, what should be happening and, more important, what should happen in the future.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the inquiry would take place in public. I was careful to say in my statement that that was a matter for the inquiry itself. Therein lies one of the lessons of the Blom-Cooper process. That inquiry was held wholly in public. One of the lessons that we should draw from the Blom-Cooper process is that it did not resolve all the issues for the future of Ashworth.

More recent inquiries, especially that surrounding the events of the Beverley Allitt case, suggest that it is easier for independent inquiries of this nature—I stress the words "independent inquiries"—to get to the bottom of what exactly happens in these very difficult cases if at least some of the evidence is taken in private.
That specific provision was included in the announcement that I made on Friday so that Mr. Fallon should have that option open to him if he wishes to take it. It is a matter for him and his inquiry. The inquiry report will of course be published.
I reject what the hon. Lady said about what she calls gagging clauses. The only provision that we have made in contracts for staff of the health service is that, where there is a disagreement between members of staff and their employing authority, the staff should first take their disagreements to the authority. We have never sought to prevent members of staff taking their disagreements outside the authority if they fail to get satisfaction. With respect, it is not members of staff who have been the key to the changes that I announced on Friday.
The hon. Lady is right about the treatment of personality disorders. One of the difficulties surrounding the treatment of mentally ill and disturbed patients is knowing how to deal with those suffering from long-term personality disorders. That question is currently the subject of discussion with the psychiatric profession and is, I suggest, best dealt with in that context, as it is the clinicians who ultimately have to make the decisions about the treatment of individuals.
The commissioning board is part of the Department of Health. It is conducting a review of the future of special hospital provision and high-security psychiatric care. That is one of the issues that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper feels that we should consider in the light of the history of the special hospitals. That is why the commissioning board is reviewing it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Mahon: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to set up the inquiry. Will it investigate the treatment meted out to Stephen Daggett, who went to extraordinary lengths to get the inquiry under way, including absconding and, when he was moved to Rampton against his will, going on hunger strike? Can I have an assurance that his case will be looked into? Will the Secretary of State also give other whistleblowers, such as staff who might want to speak out, some protection? I share the anxiety about gagging clauses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell).
Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief executive of Rampton had Stephen Daggett's report on 25 November? Did she call the police, inform the Department of Health or the Home Office, or—as I am led to believe—simply photocopy it and send it back to Ashworth, saying to Mr. Daggett, "This is an Ashworth question, not ours"? If she did, will her behaviour be included in the investigation?
When did the visits to Lawrence ward by the little girl mentioned in the report stop? Does the Secretary of State agree that, if they were allowed to continue after early October, many people who should have known better left her unnecessarily exposed to danger?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has responded to the announcements that I made on Friday. I should also have said that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich for the way in which she and her hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health have responded. To the extent that examining the background to Mr. Daggett's care is relevant to the wider inquiry on the way in which Lawrence ward has been run—it is clearly one of the central issues—of course the inquiry will look into the nature of the care that he received and where it went wrong.
It is perfectly true that the dossier that Mr. Daggett provided to the manager of Rampton was sent, on my understanding, on the Monday following its receipt to the manager of Ashworth, but, as I said in my original statement and repeated this afternoon, that dossier was not made available to officials or Ministers in my Department until the hon. Member for Halifax sent it to me.
I do not seek to give an authoritative answer to the hon. Lady's question about the last day on which the girl who is now in care visited the ward, because it is one of the issues that the inquiry will consider in great detail. It will look into whether such visits took place, on what terms and how often, and when they came to an end. Those alleged visits are at the centre of the concerns that have been expressed about the case.

Sir Roger Sims: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the prompt action that he took as soon as he was alerted to the situation. The apparent lack of supervision at Ashworth is worrying. The suggestion of paedophilia and child abuse is horrifying and appalling.
My right hon. Friend referred to wider issues. Do those include the way in which such institutions are run? Anyone who needs medical treatment should surely receive it, but the people in Ashworth are there, first, because they have committed serious offences, and, secondly, because they need medical treatment. Should not security and supervision in such institutions be just as rigorous as in conventional prisons? Is it not self-evident that that was not the case at Ashworth?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the prompt action that was taken. I entirely agree with him about the pre-eminent need for security in hospitals of this nature, although he is not entirely right in saying that every patient in a special hospital is an offender. People can be sent to such hospitals if they suffer from dangerous disorders, without having committed an offence. They are there because both they and the rest of society need the protection that a highly secure environment can provide. Hospitals are failing if they do not provide that security: they are failing their patients, and the wider public. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that that is one of the prime responsibilities of such institutions.
As for the broader question of the long-term future of high-security psychiatric care, that—as I said in answer to an earlier question—is one of the issues that the commissioning board is now actively reviewing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the prompt action that has been taken. Like him, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahan).
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the answers that he has given today have not dealt with one issue? I refer to the fear that quasi-independent national health service trusts, and the management of the three special hospitals—Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton—are able to be semi-autonomous, and that no one checks that they carry out their activities in the interests of patients and the wider public, rather than in their own interests and with a view to their own managerial self-preservation.
May I suggest that the way forward—I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give it serious consideration—is the establishment of a standing inspectorate of health and social care that can inspect any trust, hospital or other health service facility at any time, at the instigation of patient, member of staff or friend or relative? We need to ensure that there is someone outside the premises who can check on what is going on. In this instance, the concern is that, although the allegations were made, for internal reasons people decided not to take them seriously or to do anything. That is a very worrying state of affairs.

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis. The problem is that such institutions are too tightly held, and that information that should properly be available to the accountability chain—including, ultimately, me as Secretary of State—apparently was not available. I have set up the inquiry to establish why it was not.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a separate agency or inspectorate to examine such issues. With all respect, that is not the solution that immediately suggests itself to me, given that we already have two agencies dealing specifically with mental health. The Health Advisory Service actually went to Ashworth in 1995, and delivered a report that suggested that the situation there was improving. That agency—an agency of the precise kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests—delivered a report which, although not devoid of criticism, was generally encouraging following that visit, which was not very long ago. Detained, restricted and sectioned patients also already have the protection of the Mental Health Act Commission. So, in the specific field of high-security psychiatric services, we already have two bodies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is considering.

Ms Ann Coffey: They are not very effective.

Mr. Dorrell: Indeed. That is why I do not think that we should leap to the conclusion that another of those agencies is the answer. We should be considering why information did not flow, at the time when it should have, to the people who were accountable for what went on in the hospital.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The Secretary of State suggests that the information was in the


public domain because it was being discussed in the media—in the press. Is it not a shocking indictment of the commissioning boards that no one appears to have made an unannounced visit to Ashworth, given the history of that unit? Will the Secretary of State accept ministerial responsibility for the commissioning boards—and for the failure of those boards—if it is shown that they are failing us to such an extent, given that they were set up such a short time ago by his Government?

Mr. Dorrell: I have never sought to avoid ministerial responsibility for what goes on in any part of the health service, including special hospitals. That is why I took the action I did on Friday, when it was clear to me that questions had been asked, and that charges and allegations—serious allegations—had been made and had not been adequately examined by those in the front line. The question whether unannounced visits should take place is no doubt one of the questions that Mr. Fallon will examine.
However, with respect, I do not think that that can be the whole answer. I do think that there needs to be in place a management structure that observes the protocol between the Department of Health and individual special hospitals. That protocol makes it crystal clear that, where such allegations are made about treatment in the hospital, they should be reported. The advice available to me at present suggests that they were not.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that, over a long period, there has been succession of inquiries, including by journalists—particularly the local newspaper editor, for instance, who suffered as a result of gagging restraints being placed on him because of speaking out about what was happening at Ashworth? That has all militated against bringing out into the open what takes place in the hospital.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the greatest public concern at present involves the presence of a child on those premises? Will he now tell the House which local authority that child is in the care of, and undertake that nothing will be done to impede the flow of any information that may come out of the inquiry to the Merseyside police, particularly in connection with their inquiry, which is already under way, into paedophile and child abuse activities in the region?

Mr. Dorrell: I can give the absolute assurance that nothing will be done to impede the flow of information. I do not propose to reveal which local authority is responsible for the social services department, for the fairly obvious reason that it would be quite hard to preserve confidentiality in relation to the child if we narrowed it down to one local authority and an ex-Ashworth patient with a young child. That would severely jeopardise the ability to maintain that confidentiality.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is evidence that, some time ago, trade unionists who worked at the hospital received representations about the allegations, and that, in some cases, they were warned that, if they opened their mouths too wide, the union would be de-recognised? Is he aware that one of the features of this Government is that, more and

more, trade union free collective bargaining is prevented in these institutions, including in nursing homes? His Government encourage such activity.
The Secretary of State and the Government should be aware of the fact that trade unions are not just about wages; they are about conditions, and they act as watchdogs to alert the management to practices. It is high time that more attention was paid to such people, who have to work for a living, so that they can alert the authorities to some of the abuses that have taken place at Ashworth and elsewhere.

Mr. Dorrell: The suggestion that any part of the health service has threatened to remove recognition from a trade union that has raised such a concern is, frankly, ridiculous. One of the features of the hon. Gentleman's contributions to the House's debates is that they get further and further removed from anything that resembles the sort of world in which the rest of the House lives.

Mr. David Winnick: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who carried out her parliamentary duties in the most conscientious way. A tribute should certainly be paid to her for so doing.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the large majority of people believe that he should have enough on his plate as Secretary of State for Health without delving into Scottish nationalism, devolution or developments in the European Union? Is it not unfortunate that he finds plenty of opportunities for such headline work, trying to promote himself in the Tory party, and not doing the job for which he was appointed in the first place?

Mr. Dorrell: I notice that, when the opportunity arises to make a contribution to one of the most difficult aspects of the health service, all the hon. Gentleman can think of is an opportunity to make silly party political points. I think that the House and the country will draw their own conclusions from his action.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If it is true that some information about these matters, in particular Mr. Daggett' s comments, was being reported in the press in late autumn, is it not fair to say that the Minister's private office would have been aware of that? If it was aware of it, why did it not carry out inquiries as early as that, instead of the inquiry being set up today?

Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that questions were asked on behalf of Ministers, and answers were given that suggested that there was not a problem. It is precisely that failure to pass on the information central to proper accountability that is the focus of the inquiry that I have set up.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should not the whole question of the grouping together of so many people with the medical condition that leads to this sort of perverse conduct be re-examined? Is it really advisable that so many people should be congregated together who are only too likely to indulge themselves in this sort of improper performance and conduct? Should this not be a matter that is looked at in this investigation?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Incidentally, it would be wrong to imagine that every


patient in the personality disorder unit is there because of sexual offences, as that is not the case. Personality disorder has a wider meaning than that.
However, there is a serious question about the proper provision for people with severe personality disorders. I suggest that lay Members of this House should approach this question by taking the advice of trained psychiatrists, who have a proper understanding of what is and is not possible with modern psychiatric science. Having said that, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are important questions about clinical judgment concerning the treatment of such patients, and that is exactly what the commissioning board is examining.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that everything that goes right in government is the result of the work of Ministers, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of civil servants?

Mr. Dorrell: Whenever I speak about the work of the NHS, I am careful to say that its successes are the result not of political insight but of the dedication and professionalism of the professional staff who work in the health service day after day. I find it rather difficult to stomach the slighting of their work that sometimes comes from Opposition Members.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Blom-Cooper report—all but one of whose recommendations have been followed—recommended that there should be an internal inquiry into the dissemination of what it described as "unacceptable literature". It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that that inquiry has been held. What recommendations were made as a result of that inquiry? From what he has said and what has been reported today, it seems that the recommendations were not effective. When was the inquiry held? What system of accountability currently exists? At what point do he and his office become aware that the system is breaking down?

Mr. Dorrell: I inherited the regime that was introduced following the report. The hon. Gentleman asked how I deal with the implementation of recommendations. The answer is that I make individuals responsible for them, and I set time scales for reports on the implementation of the proposals. I am advised, and am satisfied, that all the recommendations in the Blom-Cooper report, with the exception of the one concerning seclusion, were implemented. I do not know precisely what regime was set up to enforce accountability for the implementation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), what questions were asked, and what answers to those questions suggested that there was not a problem? It seems as if the Department's officials were deceived by the answers. Is that the case, or were the wrong questions asked?
Did any Minister or official go to or contact this hospital between September and January? As a former parliamentary private secretary to one of the Secretary of State's predecessors who had to deal with Ely, Farley and South Ockenden, I know how difficult questions relating to psychiatric hospitals are. However, I repeat: what questions were asked, and what answers led to the suggestion that there was no problem?

Mr. Dorrell: The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), visited the hospital last autumn. He discussed the issues with the hospital management when he was there. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to the paragraph in my statement in which I said:
Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the … unit were unfounded.
The hon. Gentleman asked what questions were asked. The questions asked were the obvious ones, given the nature of the reports that were circulating: we asked, "May we please have advice about the nature of the allegations and what is being done to follow them up?" I do not propose to be drawn further on the advice that was given, beyond saying that the advice received by Ministers and officials in the Department of Health from the hospital made it clear that the hospital did not believe that there was a problem. That is one of the issues that will be at the centre of the inquiry that Mr. Fallon will lead.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to the previous question, how often do Ministers visit such hospitals? Should not those hospitals be inspected regularly by official bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested, and by Ministers, in order to build a culture that encourages visits rather than a culture of neglect?

Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is illustrated by the fact that my hon. Friend with direct responsibility for the special hospitals has visited all three in the four months that he has been responsible for them. In the period that I carried that responsibility, I visited two of the three. Those hospitals are regularly visited by Ministers, but anybody who believes that a ministerial visit is the means of discovering whether serious abuse is taking place on an individual ward has not carried out any ministerial visits.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I read in the press that the Prime Minister had given the Secretary of State for Health some constitutional responsibilities, so I attempted to table a question at the Table Office. My question was refused. If the Secretary of State has those additional responsibilities, should not hon. Members be able to ask him questions? Should he not be accountable to the House? In the light of the statement we have just heard about the Ashworth scandal, would it not be better for him to stick to the Department of Health?

Madam Speaker: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's points of order and the way that he is able to keep his face straight when he is making the most facetious comments.

BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL

Ordered,
That the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Orders of the Day — Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill will make a major new contribution to the Government's highest priorities for shipping policy—improving safety and minimising pollution at sea.
There has been widespread consultation on the measures in the Bill in all quarters. In line with the Government's policy, the Bill itself was published in draft before its introduction. The consultation revealed a high degree of support as well as some useful suggestions for improvement. The Bill has benefited from extensive consideration in another place, where it received all-party support.
The Bill adds new measures to the existing framework of policies and is wholly consistent with the Government's fourfold approach to safety and pollution policy—first, seeking to prevent incidents from happening in the first place; secondly, mitigating the consequences once an incident has occurred; thirdly, ensuring that timely and appropriate compensation is paid following an incident; and finally, ensuring that the lessons will be learnt to help prevent future occurrences.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the second issue, does the Secretary of State intend to introduce mandatory provision for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans?

Sir George Young: I shall reach that section of my speech in a moment. The answer is yes—we are planning to impose an obligation to have waste management plans on the port authorities. We propose to proceed by voluntary methods if we can, and when I reach the relevant section, I hope to say something further on that.
After the loss of the Braer tanker in 1993, the Government decided that the time was right to commission a wide-ranging investigation into the prevention of pollution at sea. Lord Donaldson was appointed to head an inquiry whose remit was
to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. Due consideration should be given to the international and economic implications of new measures".
The report of Lord Donaldson's team, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", was welcomed by Government and has since also been recognised internationally as an outstanding contribution to maritime policy on safety and pollution.
The Government have accepted 91 of the 103 recommendations in the report. More than half of them have already been implemented. In some cases, the Government were able to act without new legislation or international agreement. For example, the United Kingdom continues to exercise a rigorous port state

control regime and has taken the world lead in publishing lists of detained ships. It has become increasingly successful in detecting substandard ships. Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships—including oil tankers—are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have also announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters or committing offences likely to lead to pollution.
My Department is continuing to press hard for early implementation of those of Lord Donaldson's recommendations for which international agreement is needed, through the International Maritime Organisation and other international forums. The Bill will enable us to implement the recommendations that we have accepted, which require primary legislation.
The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention. Standards are a key weapon of safety policy and a wide range of standards, covering the design, construction, maintenance and operation of ships, are already in place.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The reality, however, is that another incident has been reported today, with yet more sea birds dying of pollution. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the House will have sufficient time to examine this most complex and technical legislation, by jamming it between a statement lasting until 4 o'clock and a decision at 7 o'clock? Is that an adequate and sensible way of considering legislation?

Sir George Young: As I said, the Bill was published in draft, there was extensive consultation and many helpful comments were made. It was also debated at length in another place. Of course, there will be a Committee stage and the Committee will have an opportunity of going through the Bill clause by clause. I know that the House will want to give the Bill the serious attention that it deserves.
Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships, including oil tankers, are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship, such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters.
The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention.

Mr. Dalyell: My constituency on the Forth is deeply affected—our beaches are filthy because of dumping. Is the lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action? Could that matter be dealt with at some point during the Secretary of State's speech or during the debate?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that when he replies or in Committee. One of the clauses clarifies the powers for dealing with pollution other than by oil. Perhaps action is not taken simply because there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the incident this morning. The marine pollution control unit has arranged for


samples of oil from the birds to be sent for analysis, to find out more details. If it can be shown that the oil came from an oil tanker, as it is attributable to the slick, it should be possible to make a claim through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.
Standards are constantly kept under review and updated by the Marine Safety Agency, often in the context of international agreements. For the majority of vessels in UK waters, the legal powers to update those standards are already in place.
In his report, Lord Donaldson identified fish factory ships, also known as klondykers, as a particular problem. Some klondykers fall through a loophole and are not at present covered by national or international standards. Clause 11 would allow requirements relating to safety to be prescribed for such ships. To ensure that those standards can be enforced, the clause provides for a notice to be served prohibiting the ships from carrying on with fish processing if the requirements are not met.
With marine pollution, public attention and headlines often focus on the high-profile single incidents, such as large spills from oil tankers. The Government are no less committed to doing all that is reasonably possible to prevent the equally important problem of illegal discharges of ships' wastes. To that end, my Department announced in January last year a package of 18 measures to combat illegal discharges.
The measures make use of the carrot-and-stick approach. Clause 5 is the carrot. It increases the incentives to ship operators to make proper use of port waste reception facilities. The stick is more effective enforcement measures and the threat of tougher penalties, strengthened by the higher maximum fines in clause 7.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Why is the maximum fine increased to £250,000 for oil tankers, but to only £25,000 for chemical carriers? The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been several illegal discharges of chemicals that have caused as much damage as an oil discharge to the marine environment. What is the reason for the glaring discrepancy between oil and chemical tankers?

Sir George Young: When he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that specific point on clause 7, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, increases the penalty for causing pollution to £250,000—if it is indeed the case that the higher fine applies only to oil.
I said that the measures took the carrot-and-stick approach, and I touched on the stick, which is the threat of tougher penalties, strengthened by the higher maximum fines in clause 7.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of the stick, there is the crucial question of evidence, which has to be obtained to bring a case to court. There has to be proof that a vessel does not have the appropriate amount of waste on board for its size and the length of time that it has spent at sea, but in the North sea, it is extremely difficult to identify the culprits. Often, incidentally, we suspect that they are not tankers but other ships discharging waste. Is there any way in which an assessment can be made of how much garbage should be on board for the length of time that has been spent at sea?

Sir George Young: Again, I hope that we shall be able to say something helpful to the hon. Gentleman later. It is

certainly the case that the marine pollution control unit is doing more work to identify more accurately which waste is dumped by which ship. The question of evidence is crucial. As I said a moment ago, when it can be proved that the oil has come from an oil tanker, there is the prospect of compensation. We are doing more work to identify those who are polluting our seas.
Lord Donaldson's inquiry recognised the importance of port waste reception facilities to the fight against pollution. In order to improve their provision and use, the inquiry recommended dialogue between the ports and the shipping and waste industries. We consulted those industries and other interested parties and they agreed that the best way of guaranteeing an effective dialogue was through the development of port waste management plans. Such plans should ensure that port waste reception facilities are adequate for the types and amounts of wastes generated; easy to use; easy to find; and not disproportionately expensive.
We are very encouraged by the fact that many ports have already begun the planning process on a voluntary basis. However, if necessary, clause 5 would enable us to make plans mandatory for all ports, from the largest commercial port to small fishing or yachting harbours.
Clause 5 would allow us to alter charging practices if they were acting as a disincentive to the use of reception facilities. It would also allow us to make the discharge of wastes mandatory, for specific types of waste or ships if, in spite of adequate and fairly priced provision, the facilities at ports were not being used.
Clause 10 allows us to reduce the risk of incidents at sea by preventing dangerous situations from arising.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt again, but it would be helpful if the Secretary of State said something about his attitude to the inclusive fee arrangements.

Sir George Young: In some ports, there is no charge for using the waste facilities—it is included in the overall port fee. In others, there is a separate charge at the point of use. The Government's view is that when an arrangement works adequately, there is no point in our intervening, but there are reserve powers to make the discharge of wastes mandatory for specific sorts of waste or ships if, in spite of adequate and fairly priced provision, the facilities at ports are not being used. Clause 5 contains powers to alter charging practices if they act as a disincentive to the use of reception facilities. In other words, if the reception facilities are so expensive that no one uses them, we have powers to alter the way in which they are charged for. I hope that the Bill contains powers to deal with the hon. Gentleman's important point.
Clause 10 gives the Government the power to require ships to move on, provided that they are not on legitimate business or exercising a right of innocent passage. For example, the power could be used on a ship anchored in the middle of a busy sea lane or a ship deliberately obstructing others in contravention of the collision regulations.
The Government are committed to ensuring that steps are taken to reduce the scale, and mitigate the impact, of an incident that has already occurred. Clause 2 would widen our powers to intervene in a salvage operation following a pollution incident at sea. The powers exist so


that action can be taken if, for example, a shipowner is taking insufficient action or a salvage operation is not being conducted in an appropriate manner.
The current test for intervention stipulates that the power to act is exercisable when an accident has occurred to, or in, a ship and oil from the ship will, or may, cause
pollution on a large scale".
Clause 2 changes the wording to "significant" and so ensures that the powers can be used where appropriate, regardless of the size of the incident. It also extends the range of persons to whom directions can be given for the purposes of intervention, by providing that directions can be given to harbour masters, harbour authorities and pilots, in addition to the owner, any person in possession of the ship, the master or the salvor.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When a pilot is guiding a ship through straits or into a harbour, does he have charge of the ship, or is his role that of an adviser to the captain of the vessel?

Sir George Young: There are some questions that one can answer without hesitation at the Dispatch Box, and others in respect of which one would do well to pause and take professional advice before even thinking about answering. The hon. Gentleman's question falls into the latter category. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the answer when he winds up.
The geographical limit of the powers has been extended to include UK-controlled waters up to the 200 nautical mile limit. Clause 1 introduces powers for the establishment of temporary exclusion zones at sea. Such zones would be set up for life saving, prevention of pollution and prevention of damage in UK waters, or part of the sea that includes designated areas lying within the 200 nautical mile limit. Details of the size and position of the zones would be regularly broadcast by Her Majesty's Coastguard and notified by the International Maritime Organisation. The innovation is similar to air exclusion zones, which can already be defined, and was among Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
A swift response and co-operation among several parties are vital during emergency counter-pollution operations. Clause 6 simplifies the procedures for the Government to grant indemnities to those who assist with counter-pollution operations at our request. It is important to ensure that mechanisms are in place to provide adequate and timely compensation to those who have suffered loss following a pollution incident at sea. The UK has played an active part in negotiations to secure agreement where international co-operation is necessary. In the past, that led to the setting up of an international fund for compensation for damage arising from oil pollution.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State think that what he is doing in relation to compensation will prevent people who have to make quick decisions from having compensation at the forefront of their minds, to the possible detriment of the speed at which the decision is made?

Sir George Young: One of the objects of the Bill is for the Government to give indemnities, to prevent those

who have to respond at the Government's request from hesitating to do so because of fears of litigation. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Bill contains provision in clause 15 for the United Kingdom to implement and ratify a protocol to amend the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims. The protocol would increase the amount of compensation available to meet maritime claims other than for oil pollution. More important, the protocol would increase the amount of compensation available to passengers and their dependants.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Eligibility for compensation certainly remains a sore point and a live issue in Pembrokeshire at the moment. At the beginning of his speech, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that full compensation would be paid to people affected, but some people who can clearly show that they were affected find that they are not eligible on the ground that they were affected once or twice removed from the original incident.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Barrie Foster, who is an adviser and consultant on tourism activities. He found that courses that he had prepared for commercial purposes had to be cancelled because the market had gone. Mr. Foster has been told, however, that he cannot be compensated because the link between the Sea Empress disaster and his work is some distance removed. Will the Bill address that issue?

Sir George Young: I am not sure that it will. As with every insurance claim, one has to establish that one has suffered a financial loss. That is true as a result of the Sea Empress, as with any other accident. I understand that compensation is paid for financial hardship when people find themselves in real difficulty. At the moment, there is a 75 per cent. cap on the claims that are being paid, but there will be an opportunity to review that in the next few days, when the relevant committee meets.
The IMO is considering the development of an international regime, to require all ships to carry documentary evidence of the owner's ability to meet third party liabilities. No such requirement currently exists, except for oil tankers. An irresponsible minority of shipowners operate without insurance. We believe that it is unacceptable for them to gain a commercial advantage over responsible shipowners. Clause 16 contains an enabling power for the UK to introduce a requirement for shipowners to have insurance, or another form of financial security, to cover their liabilities. Failure to comply with those requirements could result in tough penalties, including detention and fines of up to £50,000 in the magistrates courts. Our preference would be to exercise those powers in the context of international agreement.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Braer disaster was caused by a ship in transit from Norway to Canada. Does the Secretary of State intend to re-route ships to keep them out of territorial waters, because how can he justify boarding a ship to find out whether it is covered for insurance, when it is sailing through the Minch and the Moray firth? How would we achieve that? Would we use


gunboats and insist on boarding such vessels? Or would we ban all those coffin ships from our waters, as the United States has done?

Sir George Young: As I understand the powers, they apply to ships that come to United Kingdom ports, not to ships of passage through international waters. As I have already said, the IMO is considering an international regime, which would cover all ships. It would require all ships to carry documentary evidence of the owner's ability to meet third party liabilities. We are taking powers in the legislation to deal with the United Kingdom, and on an international dimension, we are pursuing powers to deal with ships outside UK waters.
When the Government invited Lord Donaldson to make his report, he was asked to consider the international and economic implications of any new measures. He endorsed the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, in accordance with which the shipping sector should bear the costs that it imposes.
Clause 13 contains enabling powers to recover the costs of maritime services. That could include the standing costs of emergency response and emergency towing, the costs of inspection where not already recovered, and the costs of standard setting activity. If necessary under the terms of an international agreement, light dues, which are already charged for, could be included in a wider charging scheme for maritime services.
We recognise that new charges for maritime services could have adverse implications for the competitiveness of UK ports, shipowners based in UK ports and exporters and importers using UK ports. We take those issues very seriously and have therefore stated that the preferred approach would be to implement those provisions in the context of international agreement.

Dr. Godman: On the question of charges, what of charges relating to Coastguard duties? Why are the Secretary of State and his officials so—I nearly said hostile—so reluctant to address the concerns felt by many about vessels steaming through the Minch? In a recent two-month period, 450 ships passed through the Minch, of which 25 per cent. passed through improperly, that is, they failed to report in to the Coastguard. Why do we not have a compulsory Coastguard reporting scheme for the Minch?

Sir George Young: I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and see whether we can respond positively to it. We do not propose to include charges for search and rescue under these facilities.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—I know that we may be trying his patience, but it is important that we know whether the ocean-going tugs that are stationed at strategic points around the United Kingdom will be covered by the insurance. There has been talk of some of them being withdrawn because no one can subsidise their provision. Will that be covered in the plan?

Sir George Young: The position is that, for the past three winters, there have been emergency tugs stationed by the Government in certain key places—on the Dover straits and up at Stornoway and, recently, one was

introduced on the south-west approach. Those are broadly the priorities that Donaldson recommends. When I spoke a moment ago about what the powers might cover, I said that they could include the standing costs of emergency response and emergency towing, so those could, indeed, be included in the charging regime that I have just touched on.
There are some other measures in the Bill. The opportunity is being taken to introduce a number of minor changes to merchant shipping legislation. For example, clause 23 provides for the Government to enter into international agreements concerning the protection of wrecks. Recent years have seen dramatic progress in underwater diving techniques and virtually all wrecks are now accessible to commercial salvors if they believe that there is an opportunity for commercial gain. We believe that we should take a reserve power to enable us to control those activities. We would use the power when necessary, to ensure that proper respect is paid to the final resting place of those who perished on a wreck. That would fill a gap left by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would it not be helpful if, in the miscellaneous areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in respect of amending earlier merchant shipping Acts, there be added the contents of a private Member's Bill that was moved in the 1975 Session, which provided that where a Secretary of State does not order a public inquiry when lives have been lost, those affected can apply to the High Court, to ensure that the Secretary of State calls such an inquiry? Without that power, should such important matters be left only to a single brain?

Sir George Young: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which refers back to the Marchioness tragedy. In that case, there was a marine accident investigation branch inquiry and the jury accepted its findings. Despite the hon. Gentleman's powerful case, I am not persuaded that it would be right to have an additional power for a member of the victim's family to ask for a public inquiry in those cases.
Clause 19 excludes the Royal National Lifeboat Institution from the Coastguard's power to summon vessels to assist other ships that are wrecked, stranded or in distress. That has been done at the RNLI's request, to ensure that it retains control of its vessels at a local level. In addition, RNLI vessels are provided to save lives rather than property, but the existing legislation would allow them to be used for both. The Coastguard does not and would not use those powers in practice and we are happy to rule out the legal possibility. The RNLI and Her Majesty's Coastguard work together closely and the two organisations enjoy excellent relations between officers at all levels. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable contribution that the RNLI makes to safety at sea.
The Bill contains a package of carefully designed measures, many of which originated from Lord Donaldson's thorough report and which have been the subject of extensive consultation with a wide range of interested parties. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing to see those measures implemented as quickly as possible, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have waited until


this juncture to raise it, so that I did not interfere with the flow of the debate, as it does not relate to the Bill before us.
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him to supply information in the Library about electoral registration in each constituency, because the new registers come into operation on 16 February. That question was transferred to the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, and the reply came from the ONS. The reply is that the ONS is preparing a monitor, detailing electors on the 1997 electoral register, by the new parliamentary constituencies. It will be published by early April 1997, and will be placed in the Library on publication date.
It is highly unacceptable that, although we can readily discover the numbers in our own constituency, we must wait until April—possibly after the general election—to see the national pattern, so that we may find out how many people are in each constituency and compare the number of people who may be missing from local electoral registers with the national figures.
I seek your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, regarding ways in which the House may have placed before it essential information that will be in the hands of the Office for National Statistics by 16 February, so that it can be published early—for instance, in duplicated form. Thus we would not have to wait until it was printed in the monitor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years. As he points out, the official date is next week. It seems to me that that leaves several days for him to use his considerable ingenuity to ensure that that point, having been raised on the Floor of the House, is dealt with adequately.

Mr. Andrew Smith: This is a vital Bill, and it is no less important for being in many respects uncontentious.
Lives at sea and the security of our marine environment need better protection. I hope that there is general agreement on that. Further to the remark that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made about the time available for the debate, perhaps we have the answer in the disgraceful sparsity of Conservative Back Benchers. It is a great pity that more Conservative Members are not taking an interest in the debate.
Labour Members welcome the Bill in principle and in its implementation of many of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report. We join the Secretary of State in praising the work of Lord Donaldson and his colleagues. Their report is a work of tremendous authority, which has received international acclaim.
We know that there is no room for complacency on the action needed to improve both the prevention of shipping accidents and pollution and the procedures for tackling them effectively when they occur. But for extraordinary good fortune, the Braer disaster, which gave rise to the Donaldson inquiry, would have been many times worse. This coming Saturday, 15 February, will be the first

anniversary of the Sea Empress disaster, in which 72,000 tonnes of crude oil and 360 tonnes of heavy fuel oil were spilt, affecting much marine life, 7,000 birds and miles of the most beautiful coastline in Britain.
Only three weeks ago, there was a collision in the channel; 9,000 tonnes of unleaded petrol leaked, which caused airborne pollution to rain down on large parts of England. Today, we have had disturbing reports of an illegal discharge from a vessel in the English channel; already, nearly 200 oiled birds have been found near Portsmouth.
Those disasters are but a part of the wider problem of smaller maritime accidents and spillages. In 1985, there were 366 reported oil spills in United Kingdom waters; by 1995 that figure had increased by one third to 585, with 142 incidents requiring partial or total clean-up operations. The Library brief points out that members of Lord Donaldson's inquiry were kept informed of the more significant maritime incidents, and were moved to remark that they were
shocked to discover just how many potentially serious incidents there were.
With 8,000 miles of coastline, heavily trafficked sea lanes and often hazardous weather conditions, Britain is particularly vulnerable to the dangers that substandard vessels and human error present in an industry in which ferocious international competition is not matched by sufficiently rigorous international enforcement of standards. It is profoundly disturbing that port state control inspections show that 60 per cent. of vessels are deficient in some respect, with 6 per cent. bad enough to warrant detention.
As both unions and shipowners have repeatedly warned, the high quality provided by the British merchant fleet and its seafarers is undermined by the growth of flagging out and competition from lower-quality carriers. The decline in the British merchant fleet is such that the number of UK-owned vessels registered in the United Kingdom and dependencies has fallen to a quarter of its 1979 level. Then, we were fourth in the world in gross tonnage, with 7 per cent. of the market; now, we are 29th with barely 1 per cent. Jobs and skills have been haemorrhaging from the industry. It is clear that we need not only action on Donaldson, but action to halt and reverse the decline in the British merchant fleet.
The wider considerations—the importance of the international context and the competitiveness of the British shipping industry—have an important bearing on our consideration of the Bill. They must be reasons for taking the right action, not excuses for inaction. I am confident that the public will overwhelmingly support the measures required to improve prevention and emergency action on shipping accidents and pollution.
We welcome the main provisions of the Bill. On prevention, we welcome, subject to questions of detail, the proposals on safety standards, inspection and detention of unseaworthy vessels in UK waters, the power to move vessels on, the application of safety standards to fish transhipment ships—the so-called klondykers—and measures to improve port waste facilities. We also welcome the inclusion in the Bill of enabling powers whereby the Government can require compulsory insurance or other security for liabilities.
We do well to keep in mind the two points that Lord Donaldson made in the other place. First, he said that some form of approved contract of insurance is needed if


the requirement is not to be worthless in practice. Secondly, he said that, through international agreement if necessary, there should be a means whereby those with claims against a ship can directly enforce them against the insurer, so that a shipowner cannot simply waltz off with the money.
On the provisions for dealing with emergencies, we support the establishment of exclusion zones on grounds of safety or pollution threat, the proposed stronger powers of intervention where significant pollution may arise, and their extension to the 200-mile limit. However, we have questions on a number of areas, which we will pursue in Committee.
Clause 13 and schedule 2 provide for charges for maritime functions, including the standing costs of tackling pollution and standard setting. We understand the fears voiced by the shipping industry that unilateral application of such charges could damage the competitiveness of British ports, and we note that Lord Donaldson recommended that the Government should consult their European Union partners and others to establish a common basis for them.
The principle that the polluter and the potential polluter should pay undoubtedly makes sense, and I understand that the Government support it, but how are we to implement that principle without causing unfair disadvantage to the UK shipping industry, which is already at a fiscal disadvantage compared with many of its competitors? It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what progress the Government have made in international discussions on this matter. It would also be useful to know whether the Government have agreed that the income from such charges should be dedicated to the maritime services for which they were levied, and by what mechanism. That was another point that Lord Donaldson pressed in the other place.
Recommendation 59 of the Donaldson report called for the identification of a limited number of marine environmental high risk areas, or MEHRAs, that ships should routinely avoid because of their particular environmental sensitivity. Unless I missed it, I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to that. When the issue was raised in the other place, the Government argued that amendments to the Bill were unnecessary as identification of MEHRAs was in progress and such a measure could be implemented without further legislation. It has been almost three years since the publication of the Donaldson report, and the Government have not yet produced specific proposals. The fact that it has been suggested that Skomer, which is off the Pembrokeshire coast and near the location of the grounding of the Sea Empress, should be identified as a MEHRA clearly shows the relevance of action on this issue.
The Secretary of State may be aware of the widespread support for the proposals that has been expressed by the general public and by a range of environmental organisations. I was disappointed to read the comments of the Minister in the other place, who said in Committee that agreement on the environmental criteria was still some way off. I should like to press the Minister to confirm whether the Government are committed to the establishment of MEHRAs, and what time scale is envisaged before they are in place.
Why cannot the identification of MEHRAs complement other, wider, international developments? The International Maritime Organisation's "particularly sensitive sea areas" and the European Union's "marine environmentally sensitive areas" would complement the establishment of MEHRAs. Indeed, the latter could be candidates for the former. I urge the Government to take the lead in the designation and protection of such sites by pressing for faster progress through the IMO and the EC.
Notwithstanding the reported success of the existing voluntary routing measures, I am sure that, more than four years after the Braer disaster, none of us would want to have to confront, at some time in the future, an environmental catastrophe that could have been averted by quicker and more effective action now.
I want to press the Minister on emergency towing vessels. As Lord Donaldson said, they are an important part of the precautions that can be taken to rescue and protect vessels in difficulty. It is a cruel irony that a tug was not placed in the western approaches until eight months after the Sea Empress disaster. What is more, Donaldson proposed year-round tug provision in three key areas, and winter-only provision as a purely interim measure. The current winter-only provision is on a trial basis. When does the Minister expect the review of that cover to be complete, and what provision has been made in the public expenditure forecast for cover in future years? Although the weather plays a large part in incidents of ships in difficulty, the problems do not arise solely because of the weather, and hazardous weather is not confined to the winter.
On the control of emergency salvage operations, we welcome clause 2, which strengthens the Secretary of State's power. The Donaldson report made it clear that the buck stops with the Secretary of State: a point that he stressed in the recent debates in the other place. We note that powers of intervention were not exercised in the case of the Sea Empress. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), whose expertise in these matters is a service to the House as well as to his constituents, has previously pointed out how crucial it is for the right level of expertise to be available to the Secretary of State, to enable him to step in effectively and early enough to safeguard the interests of the public, seafarers and the environment.
Will the Minister tell us, in response, what the contingency arrangements are, and what specialist advice and command structure stands ready at short notice to ensure the effective exercise of the powers in the Bill? It will be no good having the powers in clause 2 if they cannot be used properly.
On port waste reception facilities, we welcome the work that has already been done, and to which the Secretary of State referred, to address the problems of waste facilities and discharge requirements. I understand that about a third of the 350 UK ports and harbours have already forwarded their plans to the Marine Safety Agency.
Regulations as provided for in the Bill, and based on good practice and further consultation, seem the sensible way to proceed. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government have taken through the EU, and otherwise


internationally, to ensure that this sensible measure is not a source of competitive disadvantage to our ports, especially bearing in mind the effect on port dues?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about consultations within the EU. Does he agree that it would not be sensible for the UK to rely for the provision of tugs or air-sea rescue helicopters on the good will of other countries, irrespective of the organisation to which they belong?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It would not be sensible to rely on others, but that should not preclude sensible co-operation, which Donaldson specifically recommended.
The relative level of costs of using port reception facilities involves not just the EU, but the Baltic states and others. I ask the Minister to let us know what progress the Government have made in their international discussions.
On the provisions in clause 11 for local authority contingency plans for clean-up operations, what timetable does the Minister envisage for consultation with local authorities, and how does he believe compliance with a statutory duty to clean up oil spills is to be paid for? Will he examine, in conjunction with insurers, possible ways in which councils can get better and quicker reimbursement for insurance?
We should take this opportunity to praise the many coastal authorities throughout Great Britain that are currently carrying out such work on a non-statutory basis. If the Government are to impose the ends, they must say how they intend to provide the means.
We shall also press the Minister for assurances on the impact of the Bill's enabling powers of charging in clause 13 and schedule 2 on the general lighthouse fund, to which the Secretary of State referred. From the notes on clauses and ministerial responses in another place, it seems that the Government are at best anticipating European legislation, which by all accounts is some way off. As the Minister is aware, fears about the possible wider implications have been expressed in the industry and by Trinity House. He would do well to make the situation clear in his reply.
We want to examine the effect of the relative level of fines on shipowners and masters, for which clause 7 provides. It raises the magistrates fine that can be levied on each to £250,000. No one would question the need for swingeing penalties for those responsible for the illegal discharge of oil. It is right that the court should take into account the fact that a master holds an extremely responsible position on a ship and has ultimate responsibility for its day-to-day operations, but we should not forget that the master is responsible to the owner, who is his employer and who can bring considerable pressure to bear. If the fine is intended to impose on each an equal measure of responsibility, it is questionable whether the same sum is applicable, as hardly any master could pay the maximum set down in the clause, whereas some owners could. We shall pursue the matter in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): Will the hon. Gentleman explore his thinking a little further? The amount of the fine takes into account ability to pay. If the fines were equal, as

the hon. Gentleman suggests, that would enable owners to hide behind masters. Presumably, he would not want to encourage that.

Mr. Smith: We do not seek to encourage that. The question is whether it is right that the maximum should be the same in each case, or whether there should be a higher maximum for shipowners, taking account of the ability to pay. The matter is probably best pursued in Committee.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, as well as questions to be answered and issues that we want to press further. The Bill will be a step forward in maritime environmental protection, and we want it to be on the statute book before the general election. Legislation, however, is only a start. Implementation and effective enforcement will make the difference.
The British people want better protection from the hazards of marine pollution and the threat to health and the environment that it presents. Through our deliberations on the Bill, and the action that the next Government will take, we are determined to see that the British people get just that.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the Secretary of State for Defence came to tell the House about the provision of a new royal yacht, he made a great speech, saying what a maritime nation we were. His ringing words were supported by the previous Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). We were told what a noble history of maritime involvement we had and how proud we were of it, and that the new royal yacht would demonstrate our tradition and our commitment.
That is an astonishingly hollow statement from a Government who have presided consistently over the loss of tonnage and the loss of jobs in the maritime industries, which amount to a haemorrhage. It is important to understand that, although the Bill covers many complex areas of legislation, it does not begin to replace those losses.
Many of my hon. Friends will speak about environmental protection and about aspects such as port state facilities, charging and the development of action at an international level, which is essential if we are to police the seas. Before I deal with the Coastguard, a matter of grave concern to me, I want to make a wider point.
It is embarrassing for Ministers to say at the Dispatch Box that it is important for us to have cover from tugs and air-sea rescue facilities from air-sea rescue services, without making it clear that because of specific Government policies, we are becoming increasingly dependent on the good will of other nations.
One must be careful how one phrases one's views in the House of Commons. We are told, "Little Englander—you do not approve of support from any other European nation." In reality, however, the nationality of the helicopter coming to the assistance of someone in the Irish sea off the coast of west Wales may not be of material interest to him, but the time that the helicopter takes to get there and the place where it begins its journey are of enormous importance. It will not do if Belgian helicopters are the only ones available to cover many of our vital sea lanes or to have only Irish helicopters on standby when


many individuals desperately need assistance. That has happened consistently throughout the past year and is becoming more common.
More and more people are taking to the seas. As we get rid of our commercial involvement and cease to be a maritime nation—if we have not already done so to all intents and purposes—more and more people turn towards the sea for their leisure activities. They are at risk, and many of them will need assistance. It is therefore bizarre that in areas like west Wales, where RAF Brawdy was closed, the Government found themselves dependent on facilities provided not from Cornwall, as they originally said, but from Ireland and Belgium. I am happy for my grandchildren to be taught English and Welsh at school, but I did not expect them to need to be taught English, Welsh and Flemish. The Government have a direct responsibility and should make their intentions clear.
In terms of providing both tugs and air-sea rescue, the Government seem to be falling down badly on the job. One reason for that failure is that we are losing coastguards—we are losing nearly one third of the Coastguard service. Under the guise of reorganisation, coastguards are being asked to consider radical changes in the way that they work. Anyone else planning rescue services would not assume that at a time when people were using more maritime facilities, the safeguards offered to them should be cut. But that is what is happening every day.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—who is sitting on the Front Bench and who is a most courteous and gentle gentleman—told me that the Government thought it sensible to spend £1,101,768 on accountants who were being used to privatise the six trust ports. I do not know how accountants support the Coastguard service or those who need assistance at sea, or how they help the training of officers or improve facilities for our seamen, but they are being paid more than £1 million. Lawyers are cheap: they cost only £8,817 and other professions cost only £38,295. Yet we are told that there is not enough money to train, expand, or even maintain at its existing level the Coastguard service. In those circumstances, ordinary families and the ordinary constituents of every one of us will pay the price. Only when the facilities are found wanting shall we be told, "We are terribly sorry but unfortunately, owing to reorganisation, it has not been possible to provide the same level of care or cover."
If the House thinks that I am exaggerating, I should make it clear that what is being proposed will lead to a 30 per cent. change in what are called sector posts, which will downgrade maritime rescue sub-centres. It would not normally be important to talk about nomenclatures, but this is a material change. We are being asked to consider a two-tier system in the Coastguard service.
Will the Minister tell us exactly how response times will be calculated? It is clear that in the Coastguard service, unlike the ambulance service, response times are calculated in an unusual way—only from when the rescuer receives the information, not from when the call is received. We are being told that there will be a two-tier service that will consist of an initial assessment—a response to an accident—and a second provision: a rescue team. Clear evidence has already been provided from a case in Cornwall. The rescuers arrived on the scene; rescue equipment was not available to them—they had been sent to give an assessment of the situation—and a

tragic accident occurred in which people lost their lives. That may have happened anyway, but one worries about policy decisions that can put people at risk.
A Coastguard instant response team may not be supplied with rescue equipment and can only report back to a rescue centre. Is that how the Minister intends to provide care in the future? What happens to response times and the care provided at incidents if a second back-up response team is required? Is the Coastguard method of calculating 999 calls unique to that service? If so, why? How many rescue vehicles are there around the countryside? Is it the Government's intention to downgrade at least four rescue stations at vital points of the United Kingdom that already have a considerable amount of work placed on them and that may be essential to the safety of human life?
This is a complicated Bill and it is horrifying that no Conservative Member is prepared to speak about it. I have strong views on the provision of insurance and various other aspects of the Bill, particularly the protection of the environment. What is important is that the Government consider the Bill to be so purely technical that it can be dealt with almost as though it were a statutory instrument—a minor matter—instead of legislation to protect every one of our constituents. That demonstrates the Government's despicable set of priorities. I am surprised that the Government are apparently going to get away with it because of the imminent general election.
The Government's approach to the Bill demonstrates only too clearly that whatever they say, their priority is not the United Kingdom's maritime history and tradition; it is not even the provision of adequate rescue services across our nation. Their priority is something much worse: an interest in how all services that have to be paid for by the taxpayer can be downgraded and how all other facilities take second place to those that can be sold off. It is a sad day and I hope that the House of Commons will take note.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the people in Cornwall are all too well aware, oil tanker accidents such as the Braer and the Sea Empress can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife and local economies, whose welfare is intrinsically linked. It is not just accidents: there is clear evidence that much oil enters the sea from deliberate legal and illegal discharges. Harsh experience has taught us that prevention is better than cure. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the introduction of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill.
One of my earliest memories is arriving at the beach at Godrevy, near where my parents live in Cornwall. Instead of holidaymakers and fishermen, the fire brigade and Army were there, clearing thousands of tonnes of oil from the sand and rocks, and dead birds littered the area. The scene was due to the loss of the Torrey Canyon, and I remember the horror of it even now: it was like a depiction of a third world war. I never wanted to see it again. Yet it has recurred around the world, most recently with the Braer and Sea Empress disasters.
That is why I welcome the Bill as an opportunity further to protect our marine environment and to introduce new safeguards aimed at reducing the risk of shipping-related pollution. It promotes the sustainable


development of our coastal communities while seeking to enhance the protection of the environment on which they rely. In the light of that, we wish to see the Bill on the statute book this side of an election. However, we also want the Bill's provisions to be tightened in some respects, for the benefit of the environment.
I should first like to draw the Minister's attention to one of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's excellent report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", and subsequently mentioned in the other place both by Lord Beaumont—the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson on environmental matters—and by Lord Clinton-Davis. The recommendation is for the designation of marine environmental high risk areas—or MEHRAs, which have already been mentioned in this debate—which are comparatively limited and highly sensitive areas that are also at risk from shipping. The purpose of designating such areas would be to inform owners, masters, insurers and charterers of key significant areas, and it is expected that simply highlighting the areas could lead to changes in behaviour—for example, by vessels taking a wider berth.
The designation concept has received widespread support among environmental organisations. Sadly, the need for such action has been reinforced by the Sea Empress incident. Although the Donaldson report stated that the European Community and the International Maritime Organisation should be encouraged to act, it considered that individual states were best placed to designate MEHRAs. Therefore, the Donaldson report gives no reason for the UK not to act unilaterally to designate such areas.
The Government have argued that restrictions on the movement of vessels can be made only through the IMO. That is of course true of action in the pollution zone—out to 200 nautical miles—but it is possible for the United Kingdom to introduce restrictions in its own territorial waters without agreement from the organisation. Such routing measures are only one of several different types of ship management measures that could be implemented within such areas to reduce pollution risks. Use of tugs as escorts, contingency planning and navigation aids are other measures that could be deployed.
The Government have, moreover, said that they are not waiting for EU proposals on the designation of marine environmentally sensitive areas to come to fruition, which indicates that Ministers accept that the UK could act unilaterally. Would the identification of MEHRAs by the Government not complement rather than conflict with wider international developments? There is no reason why such areas should not subsequently be proposed as particularly sensitive sea areas—PSSAs—to the IMO.
Rather than succumbing to fears that those areas designated by the UK for environmental protection will be quickly overtaken by international action, as the Government suggest might happen, MEHRAs should be regarded as an opportunity for the UK to take the lead in the designation and protection of such sites and in promoting that concept at the international and European levels.
The Government's Transport Minister in the other place argued that powers already exist for measures to be taken to protect such areas. However, as we have not yet heard from the Department of Transport about measures that

might be under consideration or of the sites that might be identified, the House's reservations on the matter are understandable.
As we are all too well aware, ship routing continues to be reactive rather than proactive. The designation of a MEHRA provides an opportunity for the Government to be one step ahead in protecting our marine wildlife and in safeguarding the livelihoods of our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to consider the Government's position, because he would find it very hard to defend a lack of action if there were an accident in one of those potential designated areas because no action had been taken.
The second matter I should like to mention is the power to intervene in oil pollution incidents. During the Bill's passage, the Government have implemented an interim recommendation made by the marine accident investigation branch in its investigation into the Sea Empress, and I welcome that action. However, I am still concerned that the Secretary of State's power to intervene in such incidents is limited by the definition of an accident; and I refer particularly to the use of the word "imminent" as a condition of intervention. I contend that when damage is "imminent", it may well be too late to intervene.
The Government have defended their wording on the basis that removal of the word "imminent" is outside the definition that has been internationally approved. However, as I understand it, we are not obliged in domestic legislation to follow in precisely the same terms the form used in a convention. It seems pointless to implement an international convention designed to protect the marine environment if by so doing we increase the risk of damage to that environment. Let us ensure the effectiveness of any intervention by the removal of the hurdle presented by the current wording.
The third key issue that I should like to mention is that addressed by clause 5: the planning, provision and use of port waste reception facilities. I feel particularly strongly about that issue because I have seen all too clearly, as I have walked the coast around Cornwall, the problem caused by the lack of sufficient legislation. Although I welcome the Bill's provisions, there is still room to develop further the regulations on the preparation of waste management plans.
Currently, the Government of each party to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships of 1973 and its 1978 protocol must undertake themselves to provide, or to require ports to provide, adequate reception facilities for garbage from ships using their ports and terminals. As matters currently stand, it is voluntary for ports to provide waste facilities. I welcome the concept of waste management plans, which, if properly prepared, should lead to facilities that are both adequate and easy to use, and hence cut down on deliberate discharges into the sea—which then go on to litter our coastline. However, I am disappointed that the Bill provides only an enabling power.
I strongly believe that waste management plans must be mandatory to ensure that those ports and harbours that do not voluntarily draw up plans are required to do so.


The Department of Transport itself has acknowledged that
the provision of"—
port reception—
facilities is haphazard",
and that
researchh by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) has shown that 'where they exist, they can be hard to find and poorly publicised'.
The Department also stated that the
problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process".
Subsequently, some ports and harbours have been voluntarily producing waste management plans, and the MSA has so far received between 100 and 140 such plans; but that is out of a total of 350 ports and harbours in the UK. Another cause for concern is that the MSA does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. It is all too easy to implement wholly inadequate plans, and thus undermine the effectiveness of the initiative. Lord Donaldson himself recognised that concern in his report by recommending the establishment of a certification system to ensure the adequacy of waste reception facilities.
Although some scrutiny—which is a first, welcome step—is provided by a sub-group of the marine pollution action group, it is not an adequate assessment procedure. The Government argue that current developments in the EC and the IMO might require the alteration of any regulations that might be made, but they are again using potential international action as an excuse not to take any action now. Potential international action does not prevent the UK taking a lead and encouraging good practice.
The same principle applies to charging for waste reception facilities. Although recognising the need for some flexibility, Liberal Democrats support Lord Donaldson's recommendation that charges should be
subsumed into standard port duties
in the form of an inclusive fee. I do not believe that any other option can work effectively. Would it not be advantageous for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ports to use the inclusive fee system, if deemed appropriate, as one measure to reduce the deliberate discharge of waste? We should at least reserve the power to take action if it is shown—as I believe it will be—that other options simply are not working.
Similarly—although not advocating a universal requirement for mandatory discharge of waste from ships—I believe that it could be beneficial to enable MSA inspectors to use such a power in exceptional circumstances, such as when a vessel that is known to have illegally dumped waste before proposes to leave port with full waste tanks. The effectiveness of such a deterrent was acknowledged by Viscount Goschen in a recent letter to Lord Beaumont, which stated:
As regards a failure to comply with a requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port, and therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
As both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Marine Conservation Society have argued, such a measure would not deter responsible ship operators from entering UK ports, and I think that they are right. Rather, such a measure is targeted at those whose operations threaten the UK coastline and our waters and add to the costs of those, such as local authorities, who are responsible for cleaning up.
Those costs can be considerable. In Cornwall, the county council quotes its expenditure on cleaning non-attributable ship-sourced waste on beaches as at least £20,000 per annum. Moreover, that figure is in addition to expenditure by the six district councils, which spend no less than £30,000 per annum. Even with that level of expenditure, however, many bays are left badly polluted, and an eyesore for both visitors and locals. In practice, unless a beach is regularly used for swimming, it is unlikely that it will receive any attention. However, anyone who enjoys or walks the coastline will see the results of pollution, and, if they come close to it, they will smell the results. We are at present spending literally hundreds of millions of pounds cleaning up the discharges from people who live in Cornwall. They are paying their water bills with considerable discontent, so why should they have to put up with shipowners saving small amounts of money by discharging their waste at sea rather than at port?
While on the issue of illegal discharges, I shall touch briefly on the proposed penalties. The Bill will allow for higher maximum penalties to be imposed by magistrates for illegal discharges of garbage, oily waste and chemical waste. As I understand it, although the Bill allows the maximum fine for illegal discharges of chemicals or oil to be set at £250,000, it is Government policy to use this maximum for oil while restricting the maximum fine for chemicals to only £25,000. In a letter to my colleague Lord Beaumont, the Minister justified this position on the basis that illegal discharges from chemical tankers are rarer than those from oil tankers and that chemical tankers have lower operating costs than oil tankers. However, the pollution consequences can be at least as bad.
In view of the potential for a discharge of chemicals seriously to damage the environment, would not it be appropriate for the Government to consider setting the same maximum fine for chemicals—it is only a maximum and does not necessarily have to be employed—at £250,000? I know of no other criminal activity of which it is believed that its rarity means that the punishment should be less. Surely it is a question of how bad the activity is. After all, we would not argue that burglary should be punished more severely than murder simply because burglary is more common.
Furthermore, I have been advised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that aerial surveillance, as currently carried out by the marine pollution control unit, has a poor record in bringing offenders to justice. This is a key issue if we are to curtail irresponsible and environmentally detrimental behaviour. Is not it therefore appropriate that aerial surveillance be supplemented by waste auditing? This could take the form of checks of ship record books and the issuing of receipts for waste discharged in port. I suggest that the approach to waste auditing proposed by the Department of Transport should be more rigorous and that the Government should promote waste auditing in other North sea states.
Overall, the Bill could be a big step forward in ensuring safety and protecting the environment around our coastline. The Donaldson report has provided a clear way forward, but the Government have left some serious weaknesses in the legislation. I hope that the Government will feel able to reflect our spirit of co-operation by giving


careful consideration to my suggested improvements. If so, the Bill can achieve full cross-party support, which will be good news for everyone.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, welcome the Bill. Twelve months ago next Saturday, I discovered on my doorstep one of the 20 worst oil pollution incidents to occur since we began using hydrocarbons and transporting them across our oceans. I pay tribute to all the people involved in the initial attempts to salvage the Sea Empress and to those who have been and are still working to clean up the Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire coastline. On Saturday I was in Tenby, where work is still continuing in the harbour to remove the oil that was buried about 6 ft below the sand, to ensure that when the tourists return shortly they will find the wonderful pristine environment that they used to enjoy before the Sea Empress ran aground on 15 February 1996.
It is worth recording what happened to our marine environment which, as has already been said, is one of the most sensitive and important on the United Kingdom coastline. Seventy thousand tonnes of oil were spilt from the Sea Empress over a period of only three days, although she was in serious difficulty for about six or seven days. The incident halted the inshore fishing industry for six months and cost the Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire tourist industry millions of pounds and possibly as many as 1,400 jobs in the tourist season. It radically affected or killed 7,000 sea birds and devastated particular marine habitats. A rare starfish called asterina phylactica was virtually wiped out. It is found in only seven places in the world, one of which is West Angle bay, where it was first discovered and identified. The starfish's habitat was wrecked, although it is believed that two or three surviving examples have been found.
In other words, the impact of the Sea Empress incident was devastating. It has cost millions of pounds to clean up—the process continues—and compensation claims for the fishing and tourist industries are still being made. I therefore welcome anything that will prevent such an incident from happening again, not just in my constituency but around the UK coastline or anywhere in the world.
I welcome the Bill, although I have certain criticisms of it. It does not go far enough in some respects and I shall say why later, but it is worth examining some key aspects that could be tightened in Committee.
From what we now know, it is clear that there were serious command and control problems during the salvage operation of the Sea Empress. The initial grounding was caused by human error but, from then on, there were serious problems with the salvage operation. Those issues are dealt with in clause 2. I shall quickly go through the events immediately following the vessel grounding to make it clear why we need to look carefully at command and control issues.
On the night of 15 February, the Sea Empress ran aground with 135,000 tonnes of North sea crude on board. She was refloated within three hours, and then the salvage operation began. She was held in deep water at the entrance to Milford Haven and a strategy was developed by the salvors and representatives of the Department of Transport, Coastguard, the marine pollution control unit and the Admiralty.
The salvors decided not to accept the offer of tugs, including the Department of Transport's own contracted tug based at Stornoway. Instead, they assembled a collection of tugs almost exclusively from their own fleets. The tug fleet assembled that first weekend by the salvors had a maximum bollard pull of only some 250 tonnes. It now emerges that the vessel itself, in strong tides and currents and with a very deep draught because of the initial grounding, was exercising a bollard pull of some 800 tonnes. As one pilot said to me after the incident, the tugs were not pulling the ship; the ship was pulling the tugs. I am sure that the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is considering that serious point.
That inability to control the vessel in very difficult circumstances meant that the Sea Empress finally grounded on the evening of 19 February. She had spilt only approximately 2,000 tonnes in the previous four days, but the final grounding on the night of 19 February began the massive pollution. That first night, she lost more than 30,000 tonnes of oil.
Although I welcome the fact that clause 2 gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene in an accident that could cause significant pollution, I am concerned about how the Secretary of State will exercise them. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has enormous powers to intervene anyway. In the case of the Sea Empress, he chose not to take that course of action.
I had a meeting with the Secretary of State on 20 February after the vessel had run aground for the final time and spilt 30,000 tonnes of oil that night. I asked him, as any constituency Member of Parliament would, why he had not used his powers to intervene. He was very frank, saying that he had been told that the salvor, Smit Tak, was world-class—indeed it is—and that he did not have the expertise to overrule its decisions. I understand that, but if we tell our constituents that we are giving the Secretary of State important powers of intervention, we must ensure that he can exercise the powers sensibly and rationally. Unfortunately, the necessary expertise is not available to the Secretary of State to enable him to take control of a salvage operation, such as that of the Sea Empress, which so tragically went wrong.
It is clear from what the Secretary of State told me that morning that he did not know where to find the expertise. If clause 2 is to have a meaningful effect, the Government must either employ salvage experts directly or contract that expertise. When there is a significant possibility of pollution, the expertise should be immediately available to the Secretary of State to enable him to make a judgment on whether the salvors are the right people. A deal could be signed with the owners of a passing tug, who might not be suitable for a major salvage operation. Alternatively, the salvors may be world-class but, because of financial or commercial pressures, they may make decisions that do not benefit the environment, which everyone wants protected.
Clause 12 and schedule 2 refer to the possibility of the Secretary of State introducing a levy on the shipping industry to fund preventive measures. That should include not only the work of the marine pollution control unit but, most important, the cost of emergency towing vessels. We already have a levy on oil movements in 68 nations—the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund levy—which operates well. However, it seems illogical that that system works only when pollution has occurred. It is a


case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We do not have a levy to fund the stationing of powerful emergency towing vessels around the coast of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. That is clearly what Donaldson advocates in recommendation 96. I appreciate that the best way forward would be a European or worldwide levy, but I have a feeling that we shall have to wait a long time for that. Lord Donaldson clearly considered the issue a priority. The Government should consider a unilateral levy.
Lord Donaldson's view was that, with the emergency towing vessels that would be required in key areas and the extra equipment for the marine pollution control unit, the total annual cost would be £10 million. Considering the amount that this country has received from North sea assets alone and the profits that have been made by the producers—much of the produce does not even touch the United Kingdom coastline, passing on to north America, to Baltic countries that are not part of the European Union, or to other European ports—the cost, even if £10 million is an underestimate, is very small. The Government should not be too concerned that an industry the size of the oil industry might not be able to afford that estimated £10 million. If we can have a fund or levy to ensure adequate clean-up, surely we can have one to ensure adequate prevention.
Lord Donaldson also made recommendations about emergency towing vessels. In chapter 20, at paragraph 127, he said clearly that he saw three main areas of concern where there should be emergency towing vessels: the Dover straits, for the obvious reason that it is the busiest marine traffic route in the world; north-west Scotland, where the Braer got into difficulty and where there is a great deal of large tanker traffic moving from the North sea down the west coast of Britain to more southern European ports or across the Atlantic to north American ports; and the western approaches. He asked for year-round cover and said that in the interim—from the winter of 1994–95—emergency towing vessels should be based in Dover, Falmouth and Stornoway. That did not happen. Winter-only cover was provided for Dover and north-west Scotland.
One of the tragedies of the Sea Empress incident is that there was clearly a serious shortage of tug power, as I explained earlier, and there was no emergency towing vessel in the western approaches, as Lord Donaldson had recommended. Such a vessel could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the salvage operation. It is ironic that last week, the vessel that has now been positioned in the western approaches, again for the winter only, paid a courtesy visit to Milford Haven. The vessel arrived on station eight months after the Sea Empress ran aground.
Having taken on board so many of the Donaldson recommendations, we should address the key issue of year-round emergency towing cover in strategic positions around the coast. It is naive of the Government to believe that, outside the winter period from 1 October to 31 March, vessels do not lose their engines, have problems with steering, suffer from human error, have an explosion or fire on board or get into other difficulties.
The Rosebay incident in Lyme bay is an example. A large crude carrier was run into by a relatively small fishing vessel and 1,500 tonnes of fuel oil caused serious pollution along the south coast. That happened during the

summer months. Incidents happen all year round' so it is nonsense to be prepared to provide cover only during the winter months.
Following Lord Donaldson's recommendations, Coastguard commissioned Captain Belton to look specifically at the issue of emergency towing vessels. His report, published in May 1995, stated clearly that we should definitely have year-round cover in Dover, the western approaches and north-west Scotland. Yet again the Government did not heed the recommendation, and we ended up with winter-only arrangements—and no arrangements in the western approaches, where the Sea Empress ran aground. Many professionals believe that if the tug had been there, as recommended by both Captain Belton and Lord Donaldson, the outcome in that instance might well have been different.
Clause 12 gives local authorities a duty to maintain contingency plans. That was important at the time when I was on Dyfed county council's public protection committee, given that Dyfed contained one of the busiest ports not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe and, indeed, the world. The emergency planning department carried out its voluntary responsibilities in relation to contingency plans very well, and a series of exercises took place regularly to test them. I believe that the undoubted success of that clean-up operation resulted from good contingency planning. The department knew what equipment was required, and which contractors were available to provide that specialist equipment; it had carried out practice exercises, and had call-out facilities, rotas and a large body of staff to carry out the work that was required. I can only commend, as I did at the beginning of my speech, the actions taken by local councils, especially as they were on the cusp of reorganisation which made their task rather difficult at times.
What worries me is that, in giving local authorities a statutory duty to produce contingency plans, we are not giving them the wherewithal with which to implement them. The Government should think seriously about a way of ensuring that authorities are given enough money to carry out preparatory exercises, and also that money is available for emergencies.
It is four years since the Braer ran aground in January 1993, but Shetland council has received back hardly a penny of the £1.5 million or so that it spent at the time. I believe that nearly £1 million has been paid, through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, to local authorities that were involved in the Sea Empress clean-up operation, but a considerable sum is still outstanding. I understand that the cost of the operation to date has been well over £5 million, and the cost is on-going. It is worrying, when local authorities are under huge financial pressures, that they do not have the resources to deal with sudden emergencies. Is there not some way of ensuring that, at such times, funds are made available to them directly?
Let me say something about illegal—and legal—oil discharges. As other speakers have pointed out, it is often not the major incident that causes many of the problems. Recent incidents in the channel—or off Flamborough head, for example—have had a catastrophic impact, especially on sea birds. Because such incidents have a cumulative effect, however—I am talking about relatively small incidents that are happening week after week—they may not hit the headlines in the same way as major


disasters. I welcome the moves proposed in the Bill to ensure that ports produce proper plans to tackle the problem of waste reception facilities; I hope that that will radically reduce the number of illegal discharges. I also hope that the carrot-and-stick approach suggested in the Bill will work.
As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) suggested—as did I, in an intervention on the Secretary of State—we need to deal with one strange anomaly. Apparently, chemical spillages are for some reason 10 times less serious, or less deserving of severe penalties, than oil spillages. That issue must be clarified in Committee. We also need to ensure that no real financial penalty is imposed on owners of vessels who wish to use port reception facilities, as opposed to those who may wish to start cutting corners. I approve of the idea of including the charge in port dues: if there is an overall charge, people will feel that, as they must pay for the facilities anyway, they may as well use them.
In my experience, very few of the vessels that use Milford Haven—in fact, none of the oil tankers—call at facilities owned and operated by the port authority; they use private refinery jetties. When we are assessing waste reception facilities, we must not simply expect the competent harbour authority to say, "We have a contingency fund." We must ensure that private owners—mostly jetty owners, throughout the United Kingdom—also provide reception facilities, and that shipping owners are not charged twice, first by the oil refinery and secondly in the form of port dues.
Much has been said today about the marine environmental highrisk areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned, one of the MEHRAs that was identified after the Donaldson inquiry was immediately outside Milford Haven, around the Pembrokeshire islands of Skomer, Skokholm and Grassholm. I think that the Government must now start moving much more quickly in designating MEHRAs and ensuring that they are properly protected.
At the time of the Sea Empress disaster—and the running aground of the Borga a few months earlier, on 29 October—the radar that was supposed to cover the entrance to Milford Haven was not working, and had not been working for some months. It is still not working properly. The point is, however, that, whether it was working or not, the radar cover did not include that MEHRA. Proper protection of high-risk areas does not just mean drawing a line on a chart; it means ensuring that someone is monitoring those areas. The only way of doing that is through radar cover that is linked with either a port or a Coastguard station—and, if that is to be done properly, there will be cost implications.
I welcome the Bill, and will be pleased to serve on the Committee, for a specific reason: I do not want what happened to my constituency to happen anywhere else.

Sir James Molyneaux: The Bill goes a long way towards attaining the objectives of the Donaldson report. It was considerably amended, and improved, in another place, where debate on it was greatly helped by the expert knowledge of many who participated. Indeed, the same is true of today's debate.

success will be achieved only when a much higher percentage of ships entering British waters are British-owned and, to a great extent, British-manned.
The Secretary of State's Department at all levels is only too well aware of the difficulties, for example, in communicating with foreign ships that do not have on the bridge one officer who is capable of understanding English. I concede that the Department is to a great extent denied the power to change that position in regard both to ownership and to manning, but power does lie elsewhere.
The Capital Allowances Act 1990 contains provisions concerning what is called "first year allowance". All that is now required is a new provision establishing a 100 per cent. first year allowance for expenditure in regard to investment in ships. That modest change would begin to reverse the current position, in which more than 80 per cent. of ships entering British waters are foreign-owned. Their owners not only disregard the rule book, but do not even bother to read it. There is widespread support for such an amendment to the Finance Bill, giving effect to that modest concession in the present Parliament, and then we can get on with it.
While such a change is taking effect, safety at sea could be enhanced by the compulsory provision of transponders on all ships entering British waters. Something of that nature was suggested in the Donaldson report. It is reflected in the Department's thinking.
There is reference in Donaldson, I think, to large identification signs. I cannot believe that they were seriously meant to give 24-hour coverage, given the hours of darkness and inclement weather, with which my honourable colleague, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), was so concerned, particularly in relation to preserving what is left of the Coastguard organisation. The transponders would be much more effective and much more in line, when we think about it, with aircraft tracking systems, which are accepted nowadays as absolutely essential.
The provision in clause 1 for placing an exclusion zone around a shipping casualty is to be welcomed. I hope that the exclusion will apply also to the news industry, because the intrusion in a crisis of aircraft, helicopters and non-authorised vessels can and does hamper rescue operations, and, in those circumstances, greatly increases the risk of fire. After all, such exclusion need be only brief, because the news industry usually becomes bored in a short time with any sensation, even one of its own manufacture.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) touched on another Donaldson recommendation—which is included, I think, in clause 12—laying on local authorities certain responsibilities. It is a vague phrase, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would like to be clear whether it also involves financial responsibilities. If so, it would seem unfair that a local authority covering a very vulnerable part of our coastline should be saddled with financial responsibility when, for example, another local authority in the midlands would get off scot free; so there is surely a strong case for financial liability to be a national responsibility.
Clause 10 is an essential element. The Department's powers should not be in doubt. Mention of that gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport, his Ministers, his Department, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard for the very effective


co-operation on the Sea Empress after the two spillages. I also pay tribute to the Department for its sound decisions in regard to the subsequent removal of the seriously damaged vessel—and seriously damaged it undoubtedly was.
I had the horrifying experience of standing in the dry dock underneath the Sea Empress when she was completely pumped out. It was like looking up into a vast cathedral with nothing obstructing one's view in the way of a hull. The wonder of it is that the ship was able to be moved at all. It is a tribute to the sound judgment—there is more to this than the general public would know—of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, who ensured that there was not a third disaster in connection with the vessel.
I did not consider it necessary to declare an interest earlier, as mine is a landlocked constituency. That is not mitigated by the constituency taking its name from the River Lagan, which admittedly makes its way to the sea at the point where there are modern docks on one side of the channel and the Harland and Wolff shipyard on the other. The shipyard is still open to do business, and is in a strong position to construct new ships, the demand for which will, I hope, be generated by the Bill.

Mr. David Harris: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) did not feel it necessary to declare a constituency interest, but I feel it necessary to do just that, for three reasons.
First, my constituency is almost completely surrounded by sea, sticking out, as it does, into the western approaches. Secondly, I happen to be the president—a paid job, I hasten to add—of the Sea Safety Group. Thirdly, I was also the sponsor of predecessor legislation, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994. But perhaps the biggest interest I have to declare is the first one, as my constituency is by the sea and is the site of perhaps the first of the great environmental disasters, the Torrey Canyon, which foundered off the Isles of Scilly in my constituency in 1967.
I suppose that we have learnt many lessons since then, but, as the experience of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has shown, perhaps we have not learnt all the lessons from the years between the Torrey Canyon disaster and the foundering of the Sea Empress. During the passage of the Act that I sponsored, Opposition Members somehow had the idea that we could construct measures that would cure the problem for all time, and remove all risk. Of course, sadly, it is not like that.
We learn from each succeeding disaster, and try to prevent others. We will never, however, achieve a perfect state of legislation. Even if we did, many disasters are the result of human failing, so we can never legislate with compete satisfaction to remove the risk of such disasters. We must, however, continue to do our best, so I welcome the Bill as another attempt to do that, which helps to implement some of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's weighty report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
The Donaldson report describes the geographical position of the Isles of Scilly:
The Isles of Scilly are another group of beautiful and ecologically sensitive islands located at a shipping crossroads.

He referred to the weight of shipping that passes the islands. He went on to say that his committee was
not convinced that the TSSs"—
traffic separation schemes—
and ITZs
inshore traffic zones—
between them provide enough protection for the Isles of Scilly".
He said that the islands were "an obvious candidate" for marine environmental highrisk area status, and added:
The Department of Transport should consider the options.
It is a matter of great disappointment to me and the islanders, my constituents, that no action has been taken to follow up that recommendation.
As Lord Donaldson said, the Isles of Scilly need added protection. The council of the isles has for some time urged that there should be some exclusion zone around the islands, to prevent another Torrey Canyon. While the Donaldson committee was deliberating, there was something of a near-miss involving a tanker. Fortunately, it did not result in disaster, but the risk is always there.
Some hon. Members will know that, ever since I became a Member of Parliament, I have deplored the way in which Coastguard stations have been removed—in fact, I made my maiden speech on the issue. I can claim that I managed to hold on to the last of the visual watch Coastguard stations in the country, which were in my constituency. Alas, they were also removed a few years ago. I was a founder trustee of National Coastwatch, which was set up to put in place on a voluntary basis a number of visual watches around the coastline. Those volunteers are doing excellent work.
As the hon. Member for Pembroke said, if we are to implement the measures outlined by Lord Donaldson, it is necessary in the areas concerned to have a very close watch by radar, and, I suggest, a visual watch. We cannot afford to allow these accidents to happen, and sometimes they can be prevented when coastguards or volunteers see a vessel literally heading for the rocks. That has happened in the past, and warnings have been given. One of my fears about the removal of visual watches is that we will deny ourselves the opportunity of preventing accidents in that way.
I also warmly endorse the plea of the hon. Member for Pembroke on the stationing of a deep-water tug in the western approaches all year round. I believe that that is absolutely essential, for the reasons given by Lord Donaldson, and following our experiences with the Sea Empress.
I welcome the Bill, although I do not think that it is the end of the story. I am sure that our successors in this place will return to the issue over the years—partly, I suspect, because there will be further disasters such as the Braer. I see that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who suffered that disaster, is in the Chamber. The House must do more to close the loopholes which undoubtedly exist. I return to my plea: perhaps we should put the clock back and return to visual watches in those parts of the coastline which are most at risk.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that many Opposition Members


welcomed the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994? We have sufficient experience of the fishing industry to know that, occasionally, vessels are overwhelmed in utterly natural circumstances, and we are well aware of the dangers facing our merchant seamen and fishermen.
I am pleased to see the Bill's emphasis on accident prevention measures, but it is important that, in designating exclusion zones, we do not lose local fishing sites. Damage would be caused if fishermen were to be excluded from traditional fishing grounds, but I am sure that officials will take account of the concerns of fishermen. The Secretary of State is not here, but I readily acknowledge his concern about enhanced safety regulations.
Will the crews of emergency vessels be equipped with immersion suits—sometimes called survival suits? If they are involved in such work, they should be provided with every piece of safety equipment available, and I think that a survival suit is essential. I have long campaigned for the crews of our fishing vessels to be equipped with survival suits. Sometimes, officials and Ministers think that I am talking about suits for fishermen to wear while they are working on deck, but that is not the case. The kind of survival suit to which I am referring is one which a crew member dons when the ship is foundering.
Let me give an example. A few years ago, a French stern trawler with a crew of 27 foundered off the coast of St. Kilda. She went down quite quickly, and the men on watch had time to put on their survival suits. Out of a crew of 27, 14 men were on watch and had time to slip on their survival suits. Every one of them survived—despite being in heavy seas off St. Kilda in February—and the men were rescued as a result of the remarkable efficiency and bravery of a helicopter crew from Lossiemouth. The poor crew members who were down in their bunks did not have a chance to put on their survival suits, and they quickly died—as one would expect in northern waters at that time of the year. That is a stark example of what happens when a man goes into the water without a survival suit.
I make no apology for continuing my campaign, because I do not believe that any UK-registered fishing vessel should be allowed to leave port without a survival suit on board for each member of the crew. I have been criticised by fishermen's associations for that campaign, but the father of a young fisherman who drowned not so long ago after going overboard from a Scottish fishing vessel now says that he wishes his son had been able to don one of those suits.
I am pleased that, at long last, we will have regulations governing the klondykers—the floating fish-processing plants which play an important role in the Scottish fishing industry. Fishermen anchored in Loch Broom ship their mackerel on to these ships. This work is done mainly at Ullapool, but also takes place in Shetland. As someone who comes from a fishing family and who made his first trip to the Arctic at the age of 11, I must say that I would not sale across the Clyde in some of the vessels seen at Loch Broom. They are a disgrace to the nation under whose flag they fly. I am pleased to note that the Bill will introduce tougher regulations on maritime hygiene and safety.
On the issue of criminal proceedings against the owners and captains of vessels who infringe the rules, can the Minister confirm that, in the Scottish courts, the local procurator fiscal would refer such cases to the sheriff court? I am sure that the Minister will be keen to answer that question.
On the question of the Minister and his officials taking note of the concerns of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Government's measures are welcome. Some would say that the Government's relationship with the Coastguard and the RNLI is somewhat theoretical, but they have made an important gesture to the RNLI. Together with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I represent the House on the executive committee of the RNLI, so I welcome those measures.
I have asked the Secretary of State—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the point later—whether the pilot of a ship acts as an adviser and guide to the master of the vessel. When a pilot is taken on board a ship—for example, when a ship enters the firth of Clyde—I understand that the ship is not under his control, and the master remains in command of his vessel at all times, even when the pilot is on board.
Lord Donaldson dealt at length with the subject of the Minch in his report. Incidentally, Lord Donaldson, as he himself pointed out recently, is not the sole author of his brilliant report. I have long argued that very large vessels—such as very large crude carriers and ultra large crude carriers—should stand to the west of the Western Isles. Lord Donaldson recommends that, in exceptional weather, such ships should be allowed into the Minch.
I disagree; that is the one criticism I have made of the Donaldson report. Big ships, especially in bad weather, should stand in deep water and not in relatively shallow water, especially waters that are so important to our fishing communities on the west coast of Scotland. There is a deep-water route to the west of the Western Isles—as the Minister knows, because he has heard me complain about the subject before—and that is the way that the largest vessels should take. The route lies to the west of North Uist, Hams and Lewis. It might add three or four hours' steaming time, but that is the vessels' problem and not that of the communities in the beautiful area around the Minch.
In their report, Lord Donaldson and his colleagues said the deep-water route was
the only one in UK waters established for environmental reasons.
My concerns about the Minch are shared by many people in Scotland. For example, a letter to Members of Parliament from Councillors Michael Foxley, William Fulton and John Munro states:
The Highland Council and the Western Isles Islands Council have serious concerns over the current arrangements for managing the movement of tanker traffic transiting the north west of Scotland".
The letter continues:
A recent survey of shipping through the Minch over a two month period saw 456 vessels pass through the Minch, 25 per cent. of which did so improperly.
By "improperly", the councillors mean that those vessels failed to report their positions to the Coastguard and some of them failed to stick to the designated channels. Such failures might lead to a serious accident in those important fishing areas.
The councillors continue:
Taking into account that less than 20 per cent. of the total number of vessels using the Minch were UK registered and therefore less familiar with the specific dangers of local waters, there are very real concerns that an accident is waiting to happen.
Those douce highlanders make a good point, and I hope to address it further, if I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee. I might get the thumbs down from the Whips Office, but I hope not.
I know a skipper who put a big stern trawler ashore in the Minch, because he thought its turning circle was smaller than it was. It was only 750 gross registered tonnes. What will happen to the tankers and other big ships that carry hazardous materials through that narrow channel? I suggest to the Minister that he pays close attention to some of the proposals made by the two councils. For example, they suggest the introduction of a compulsory Coastguard reporting scheme for all shipping moving through the Minch. It is obvious that the voluntary scheme is ineffective. The letter also contains proposals to
sustain the current practice of directing all laden vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage to the deep water route to the west of the Western Isles".
The councillors also suggest that, if vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage pass through the Minch at times of severe weather, they should do so only under the authority of a qualified pilot. That is a reasonable suggestion. They say that vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage with hazardous cargo should be treated as if they were over 10,000 gross tonnage. We also need, as suggested by the councillors, measures to secure the permanent provision of an emergency towing vessel of sufficient capacity based in Stornoway. One is stationed there in the winter, but, as we know, ships founder in other seasons.
Clause 18 deals with general lighthouse authorities. It provides that a general lighthouse authority may use any of its assets that have spare capacity, after discharging its functions to manage and maintain all navigational aids, and enter into an agreement, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exploit that spare capacity. I presume that that means the Secretary of State for Transport, but the Secretary of State of Scotland also has an important role to play.
For example, the Pharos—the northern lighthouse vessel which was launched from Ferguson's in Port Glasgow and entered service in early 1993—is presumably one of the assets that can be used elsewhere. I suggest that it could be used, as it has been in the past, as a reserve vessel for the Britannia, especially when the royal family visit parts of Scotland, including the Western Isles, in the performance of their duties. Written answers on 31 January 1997 show that the Queen used the royal yacht for a total of 46 days in 1995 and 1996. When the Queen visits the Western Isles and other points of the compass, the Pharos might be used. It is a very fine ship, and I speak as an ex-shipwright. It was built in my constituency to the highest of standards. It is a first-class ship and it could be used by the royal family instead of spending £60 million on a replacement vessel.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that some amendments will be introduced that will, in my humble view—I am as modest as the hon. Member for St. Ives—improve it. I can think of some at this moment. In terms of enhanced safety and accident prevention measures the Bill ought, however, to he welcomed by everyone present.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I also ought to declare a constituency interest as I live in and represent an area on the south bank of the Forth, in closed waters. When I listened to the powerful and detailed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and his description of the Sea Empress, I could not help but feel that there but for the grace of God might we have gone. There was a near accident at Aberdour and, in closed waters, the results would have been catastrophic.
When I listened to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), it occurred to me to ask why, in the past 30 years since the Torrey Canyon, we seem to have made so little progress. It is not as if British Governments have been run by people who were uninterested in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will recollect that the Prime Minister of the time had his holiday house in the Scilly Isles. Indeed, so much did he love those islands that he is buried there. Harold Wilson cared enormously about this issue. His Conservative successor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), is not exactly uninterested in things maritime. Nevertheless, successive Governments—not only those under the leadership of those two Prime Ministers—have not made the progress that one might have expected.
The Bill—indeed, any Bill on the subject—is particularly welcome, therefore. I must point out to the Minister, without antagonism, however, that in such a debate Ministers should listen to their parliamentary colleagues when they are saying more or less the same thing. We are saying—the Opposition Front Bench, my colleagues and the hon. Member for St. Ives—that there should be mandatory provisions for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans.
I should like to hear in the reply to the debate, or in Committee—preferably in the reply—what on earth is the objection to mandatory provisions. When I intervened on the Secretary of State—he will forgive me if I have got him wrong—he said that he was against mandatory legislation. Equally, he seemed to be against mandatory discharge of waste by visiting ships coupled with charging for reception facilities by an inclusive fee system.
Such mandatory provisions are the considered view of a number of those who know a lot about such things, not least the Marine Conservation Society, of which I am a member. Indeed, I took part in its "Beachwatch 1996" survey and cleaned up a great many plastics and other things under the Forth bridge on that rather cold and windy autumn day.
Can the Minister tell us what the objection is and why the Government are unwilling to accept mandatory provisions? There must be some objection, but we cannot divine it. Have they been given some legal advice? What is it?
On 28 January, I asked the Secretary of State
what assessment he has made of the impact of the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1988 in reducing marine debris.
His answer was:
Surveys by and on behalf of the Marine Safety Agency have shown that the waste reception facilities provided by harbour authorities pursuant to the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 are generally adequate.


Frankly, they are not adequate and they never have been. They were not adequate 30 years ago, when I was a member of the Mikardo committee. My best advice, in preparing for the debate, was that they are still not adequate. The Minister should not have continued:
It is therefore difficult to make a specific assessment of the effect of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 in isolation from other legislation relating to pollution of the marine environment from both shipping and land-based sources.
I also asked whether the Secretary of State would
set up a public register of legal notices, offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment from shipping.
The departmental reply was:
The Government already publish details of vessels prosecuted for marine pollution offences and vessels which have been reported to their flag states for suspected pollution offences. We do not intend to introduce a public register.
That course of action has not been effective and it is not sufficient to say:
We do not intend to introduce a public register."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 128.]
There is a good case for such a register. Legal notices and details of offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment by shipping should be kept on a public register and so be subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The combination of requiring records to be kept, and the prospect of public scrutiny, would secure greater use of port reception facilities for oil and rubbish by visiting ships. The pollution regulation of the shipping industry would also be brought into line with terrestrial industry in terms of access to environmental information.
For the register to act as a reliable and effective pollution deterrent, it should be comprehensive, regularly and routinely updated and available for public scrutiny at all reasonable times and at reasonable cost. That is a pretty reasonable proposition. I hope that the Government will reconsider a public register before the Bill goes to the Standing Committee.
I also hope that the Government will reconsider having garbage record books. There is a lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action. Evidence to bring a case to court could be obtained if there was proof that a vessel did not have the appropriate amount of waste on board for its size and the length of time spent at sea. It is for that purpose that the use of garbage record books should be implemented as soon as possible.
Garbage record books would record each day the volume, description and type of garbage arising from the normal operation of the ship. They would record the date and time, and the volume, description and type of garbage placed into reception facilities at named UK ports. They would also record the date, volume and the method of disposal of any garbage from the ship, by whatever means. Every garbage record book would be made available to the relevant authorities in subsequent ports visited. The books could be inspected and copied on to a public register. Easy access to that register would allow public scrutiny of the environmental practices of ships and ship operators going through UK and other ports. In turn, that would act as a deterrent to bad environmental

practice, while allowing ships that operated in an environmentally sensitive way the opportunity to profit from the good publicity provided by good environmental practices.
That is the view of the Marine Conservation Society and others, but it is also my deep, personal conviction. Unlike almost all other hon. Members, I spent two years at sea as a seconded employee of P and 0. Going into ports, and at sea, one sees exactly what happens: crews are casual and take the easy way out; blind eyes are turned; skippers are not all that fussy; and even the most rigorous captains cannot be on top of the situation all the time.
Something must be done if we are to be at all effective. As my hon. Friends have said, it costs a great deal less to nip the problem in the bud than to clean up the beaches afterwards. I emphasise the importance of easy-to-use reception facilities. Waste management plans should be introduced as primary legislation in the Bill and not in the form of its current enabling powers, to ensure that all ports prepare adequate plans without further delay.
The Department has stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. In Committee, we should like to hear more details of precisely what the Department has in mind for that process. The initiative is a welcome first step, but the Bill does not deliver the system of certification of all waste reception facilities that was called for in recommendation 27 of the Donaldson report. People in the Marine Conservation Society who have considered the matter would be keen for the Environment Agency to be given the responsibility for reviewing and deeming adequate those waste management plans.
I mentioned the inclusive fee during the Secretary of State's speech; he was most courteous about giving way. While the inclusive fee system is probably most appropriate for garbage and non-cargo oily waste, such as bilge water, oily waste from cargo tanks is likely to be more voluminous and specialised and therefore to cost more than an inclusive fee system could easily cope with. However, the need for an inclusive fee system is highlighted by Lord Donaldson in recommendation 27(e), and it is clear that a shipowner or master is more likely to use the facilities for which a fee has already been paid. That is human nature.
I hope that something will be said in Committee about the impact on wildlife. The full impact of marine debris on marine species is difficult to assess because of the limited research and the fact that sampling is largely confined to land-based observations. Research so far has primarily measured frequency of interaction rather than assessing the proportion of a species that is affected.
Marine debris can directly harm wildlife as a result of entanglement and ingestion. It is estimated that more than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die each year from entanglement in, or ingestion of, plastics. Of the 115 species of marine mammal, 47 are known to become entangled in or to ingest marine debris. In Committee, we can discuss the various hazards presented to marine life by such debris.
I hope that, whatever else the Minister leaves to be dealt with in Committee, he will explain to the House what on earth the objection is to introducing mandatory provisions for the crucial reception facilities at our ports. He owes us that explanation this evening.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, the Bill is vital and welcome, and the Labour party supports its measures.
We regret the fact that it has taken not one but two serious marine pollution disasters finally to convince the Government of the need for the legislation; a need underlined yet again today by the incident in the English channel that was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
We also regret the fact that it has taken the Government almost three years to bring before the House Lord Donaldson's highly praised and respected inquiry into the first of those disasters. We accept that, despite the apparent complacency and the delays that have preceded its publication, the Bill will go at least part of the way towards creating the safer ships and cleaner seas that were the aim of Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
However, many aspects of the Bill still require further explanation from Ministers, who will also have to justify a number of omissions. Many of those aspects and omissions were highlighted not only by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich, for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux).
In addition, many informed and probing interventions from my hon. Friends were courteously allowed by the Secretary of State, in the most marked contrast with the fact that, with the exception of those on the Front Bench and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), no Conservative Member has been present to hear, let alone contribute to, this evening's important debate.
The Bill was a golden opportunity for the Government at least to begin to address the appalling decline in Britain's merchant fleet that has characterised their 18 years in office. The figures have been well rehearsed, but they are none the less staggering.
Since 1979, the United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined by 24 million tonnes, or approximately 65 per cent. of its former size. According to Lloyd's, Britain now ranks 22nd in the table of world trading fleets, behind nations such as Malta, Turkey, Italy and St. Vincent. Under the present Government, more merchant tonnage has been lost from the British fleet than was lost by all the allied forces in all theatres in the second world war.
The figures are damning in themselves, but they are also directly related to the issues that we have been debating today, because the dramatic decline in the United Kingdom register has been matched by an equally dramatic increase in the use of flags of convenience.
Opposition Members are proud to acknowledge that British shipping has one of the best safety records in the world, but as more and more of our vessels are forced to flag out and more and more of our goods are transported by vessels over which we have only limited jurisdiction, that safety record is undermined and the threat to our coastline increases.
The decline of our merchant fleet also has serious economic implications. According to the Chamber of Shipping, since 1979, the gross earnings of the British

merchant fleet have declined from £9.8 billion to £4.7 billion per annum. In 1975, the sea transport account of the UK balance of payments was in surplus. Under the present Government, that surplus has been allowed to slip into deficit. That decline in earnings represents lost investment not only to the nation but to the maritime industry, which could have a serious knock-on effect in terms of pollution and safety.
It has been well documented that the majority of maritime casualties involve vessels of 14 years or older, with more than 90 per cent. of vessels lost at sea being 15 years or older. Similarly, poor maintenance of vessels is widely agreed to be a major contributory factor to shipping accidents. The 1995 European port state control report states:
Most of the defects discovered could have been avoided if proper maintenance had been carried out.
The decline under the Government of Britain's merchant fleet and the ascendancy of flags of convenience that has accompanied it cannot be divorced from maritime safety and pollution. Those issues constitute an omission from the Bill that we intend to address both in Committee and on Report. Equally worrying is the Government's reluctance to confront crewing and crew training. The Donaldson report concluded that human factors are responsible for almost 80 per cent. of maritime casualties. Similarly, the 1992 National Audit Office study concluded:
Operational failure and human error are the main cause of the majority of accidents to ships".
Despite the importance of highly trained seafarers to securing high standards of maritime safety, British shipping faces a manpower crisis. The number of British officers employed by British shipping companies has declined by 75 per cent. since 1979. According to the Chamber of Shipping, it is set to decline by a further 30 per cent. over the next decade. Despite warnings about the disastrous impact of falling numbers of seafarers and seafarer cadets, the Government spend less on support for seafarer training than on their ministerial car fleet. We believe that it is impossible to confront the issue of maritime safety without examining crewing. Again, we shall press the Government on that in Committee and on Report.
The Bill's measures to protect the environment and tackle pollution are welcome, but we have several concerns about pollution prevention matters. It is disappointing that there appears to be nothing in the Bill to address the problems surrounding the detection of vessels responsible for pollution. According to the latest figures that I have been able to obtain, which relate to a survey conducted by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers between June and September 1995, in the 139 oil pollution incidents reported around the UK, only three of the offending ships were detected. Similarly in 1995, only 37 vessels were detained in UK ports on suspicion of involvement in illegal discharges of oil and hazardous chemicals; of those, only 11 cases were referred to the Treasury Solicitor for possible prosecution, while 19 were reported to their flag state.
While we accept that unilateral action on the inspection and detention of foreign-flagged vessels is difficult because of the impact on competitiveness and on British seafarers forced by the decline of the British fleet to serve


on such vessels, what action is being taken at European and international level to agree tighter regulations for the frequency and thoroughness of port state control inspections?
Equally, we believe that the Government should take a strong stance to protect Britain's fishing grounds from the problems of fish transhipment in the form of the so-called klondykers. We welcome the Government's proposed measures to tackle the problem and the Secretary of State's reference to it. However, we are not yet convinced that those measures go far enough and we shall explore the matter in Committee and on Report.
As I said, many of the Bill's measures respond to Lord Donaldson's report, which was itself a response to the Braer grounding of January 1993. Since then, the Government have been somewhat overtaken by events. We welcome the fact that Ministers have been flexible enough to insert several measures that clearly respond to the Sea Empress disaster. The details of that, and the continuing concerns, were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. We welcome the measures as far as they go, but we seek further assurances from Ministers. In particular, we want an assurance that the process of salvage by committee which allowed an accident to turn into farce and then disaster will never be repeated. We shall certainly seek assurances that Ministers will never again place responsibility for the co-ordination of a major maritime rescue operation in the hands of a chef from a local Chinese takeaway restaurant.
I reiterate the request of my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East, for Pembroke, for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Crewe and Nantwich that the Minister here and now confirm or deny reports that the Government are considering the removal of winter tug cover from our coastline. He could also explain how they can afford to spend £60 million of taxpayers' money on a royal yacht to safeguard the leadership ambitions of the Secretary of State for Defence, but cannot afford the £3 million a year that it costs to protect Britain's coastline.
We welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but there are many issues that must still be addressed and many questions to which Ministers must find satisfactory answers. We intend to tackle those issues both in Committee and on Report and to ensure that this legislation goes as far as it can to secure Lord Donaldson's ambition of ensuring safer ships and cleaner seas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): To continue where the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) left off, we can join hands across the Chamber in seeking to build on the work of Lord Donaldson. I think she said that she thought this a good Bill. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said the same, as did all hon. Members who spoke. That was also the view of all parties in the other place. Lord Clinton-Davis wished the Bill well and described it as good. I am happy to accept that accolade as we take it into this House.
Several hon. Members mentioned personal experiences. As the Member of Parliament for the landlocked constituency of Battersea, my memories reflect the

Marchioness tragedy, after which I introduced a Bill to improve river safety. Many ideas have been flagged up for the Committee and we shall no doubt enjoy discussing them in detail.
I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) who, from the days when he had to cope with the impact of the Sea Empress incident on his constituents, drew a vivid picture of why the Bill is important. His picture was endorsed and reinforced by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who described standing beneath the Sea Empress in dry dock and seeing a gaping hole. I must be careful not to prejudge the marine accident investigation branch investigation and inquiry, but the interim recommendation to extend the power to issue a direction to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots has been accepted, as has the statutory basis for the national contingency plan. Both are dealt with by the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was kind enough to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I pass that accolade swiftly to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. He and my right hon. Friend are grateful for that tribute. It is in tribute, above all, to the work of Lord Donaldson that we introduce the Bill.
Many of the matters that have been discussed will come up in Committee, for which we have had many volunteers. I shall canter through some of the points. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about pilots. He is right that the captain retains charge of the vessel, even when the pilot may have conduct of it. I hope that that is a helpful clarification.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Minches. We have undertaken a radar survey of the traffic there. In bad weather there may be circumstances in which it would be better for vessels to use sheltered waters, otherwise vessels should be in the deep water to the west of the Hebrides. He also referred to survival equipment and survival suits. Our tugs carry the equipment necessary for the conditions in which they operate and we encourage fishermen to make similar provision on board their vessels. I can confirm the Scottish legal process in terms of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff courts. I hope that that, too, puts his mind at ease.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to the problem of klondykers. We are aware of it, and I am grateful to them for their support for the relevant measures in the Bill. No doubt we can examine the issue in some detail in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked particularly about the Scilly Isles. Lord Donaldson mentioned them, as well as Skomer, as possible marine environmental high risk areas—MEHRAs. We have undertaken radar surveys of both locations, the results of which will be published shortly. They are part of our examination of MEHRAs and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Scillies are very much in our mind as we consider that issue.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the importance of a knowledge of English. It may be of some comfort to him to know that we are about to introduce regulations—the minimum standards of safe communication—on which we have already consulted. They require a person on a United Kingdom ship or any


foreign ship in territorial waters to have on board a person capable of communicating with the shore. That implements in part an EC directive on the training of seamen. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the reasonable costs of the clean-up following an oil incident. They will be met by the intergovernmental oil pollution liability and compensation system. The costs of planning and preparation will be considered as part of the review of the national contingency plan that my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has announced, and before any regulations are made under clause 12.
If I may, I shall leave the issue of charging for further discussion in Committee.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of points, including some that suggested a degree of gunboat diplomacy in Liberal policy. I must tell him that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea prohibits measures that hamper innocent passage in the territorial sea or other measures on the regulation of maritime traffic that do not conform to international law. We cannot take unilateral action, which he urged, that is mandatory on ships. We can take advisory measures, but mandatory action needs prior approval by the IMO.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke will understand that I cannot comment on some of his remarks relating to the Sea Empress because they are a matter for the investigation. I have already mentioned the review of the national contingency plan to which he referred. The powers of the Secretary of State to intervene will be discussed in Committee.
The example of the Sea Empress occupies our mind, and the hon. Gentleman referred to compensation claims being dealt with too slowly. We are conscious that we need to look carefully at that matter. At the moment, we have no evidence to suggest that there have been any significant delays in the payments of claims, although that may not be the impression of the person who is waiting. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund is required by its establishing convention and rules of procedure to seek documentary evidence of the validity of claims. In some cases, payment can be delayed if that evidence is not provided by the claimant. There is no evidence to suggest that many are suffering financial hardship. There are procedures for claiming hardship payments but, as I understand it, so far, just five people have applied for them.
Various issues were raised about the Marchioness and public inquiries. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to those queries during his speech, but perhaps we will discuss the matter again in Committee. In broad terms, the Secretary of State has discretion to hold public inquiries that are known as formal investigations. We need to judge the circumstances of each incident when deciding how to proceed.
The issue of MEHRAs is a matter of considerable interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Some concern was expressed that progress has not been made on them, but I can assure the House that we are currently developing the criteria for environmentally sensitive areas in conjunction with the joint nature conservancy councils, which are the Government's statutory advisers on conservation issues. When the areas are identified, we will look in detail at the shipping patterns in them. I hope that, before too long, we shall be able to consult other interested bodies—certainly later this year.
The European Commission's proposal for marine environmentally sensitive areas—MESAs—was also raised. We need to be clear that we are not duplicating ideas, or proposing conflicting ones. We undertake to consider that matter carefully.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister recall that, in Committee on what became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we inserted into the Bill, with the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the concept of marine nature reserves? Progress has been abysmally slow. Eventually, a decision was made on Lundy and Scilly, but little progress has been made on Skomer—my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) will correct me if I am wrong. Nothing has been done about some places in the Outer Hebrides and Loch Sween. Why is it so difficult to make progress?

Mr. Bowis: The best thing would be to discuss that further at a later stage. We are hastening to try to reach agreement with the statutory advisers so that we can bring forward proposals for regulation.
Tugs have been mentioned. It was decided that emergency towing vessels should be stationed on a trial basis at the three locations highlighted by the Donaldson report and the Belton report as having a significantly higher risk factor than other areas—the Dover straits, the Minches and the south-west approaches. The problem of the seasons has been referred to. Weather conditions in the winter can, of course, generally be expected to be the worst. When the trial ends at the end of March, we will consider carefully the long-term future of those vessels.
I hope that I can put the mind of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at rest when I say that it is the Government's intention to introduce the mandatory aspects of the waste management plans. Following the passage of the Bill we will bring forward regulations for consultation to achieve just that. There may be some confusion, because we are also seeking to lead internationally and to encourage wider agreement within the IMO. The European Commission is also interested in supporting such measures.

Mr. Dalyell: If I have understood it right, it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for doing that. Can we take it that Government amendments will be tabled to introduce mandatory provisions on port waste facilities?

Mr. Bowis: I think that that is not necessary, because the Bill enables regulations to be laid. The intention is to consult following the passage of the Bill on the regulations that would achieve that aim. We can pursue that point further in Committee.
The detection of polluters at sea, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, and the issue of plastics, which was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, are important matters. The maximum fine was also mentioned: £25,000 in respect of non-oil pollution—chemicals, gases and so on—is, of course, relevant only to magistrates courts. Spillages of that nature, given their rarity, might be referred to the Crown court which has no limitation on the fines it can impose.
Some of the measures in the Bill are sufficiently up to date to be relevant to the most recent spillage, which was of oil. We are taking the lead internationally in developing


a workable system of automatic ship identification transponders, which would remove ships' anonymity and allow a polluting ship to be identified even at night or in fog. We have some interesting times ahead in Committee and, for the time being, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given by virtue of the Act to a person taking measures with respect to marine pollution;
(b) any other expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the provisions of the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided; and

(2) the making of payments out of money provided by Parliament into the General Lighthouse Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the imposition in accordance with the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996 (or any revision of that Convention) of obligations to contribute to the International Hazardous and Noxious Substances Fund established under the Convention;
(2) the imposition of charges for the purposes of recovering costs incurred—

(a) by the Secretary of State, in connection with his maritime functions, or
(b) by general lighthouse authorities, within the meaning of Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, in respect of their functions under that Part;

(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums which would otherwise be payable into the General Lighthouse Fund; and
(4) the payment of other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Welsh Development Agency Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I wish to set out the purpose of the Bill; to refer to the success of the agency in its use of the existing financial limit; and to set out my priorities for expenditure within the limit proposed by the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill, as set out in clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Welsh Development Agency from the present level of £950 million to £1,350 million. The limit was last raised by the Welsh Development Agency Act 1991. On the basis of current estimates, the present limit will be reached during the 1998–99 financial year. It is necessary to raise the limit to permit continued public expenditure to finance the agency's activities so that it can continue its excellent work for the benefit of Wales and the Welsh economy.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Hague: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) already wishes to intervene, so I shall give way.

Mr. Carlile: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed increase in funding for the Welsh Development Agency does not contain within it a hidden agenda to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales? Will he confirm that the Development Board for Rural Wales is still considered to be a valuable part of Welsh economic development and that it would be viewed as a serious mistake if anyone were to propose its abolition, either now or in the near future?

Mr. Hague: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I see a continuing and important role for the Development Board for Rural Wales. He will be reassured that the Bill has nothing to do with that, but I know that Labour Members—who have designs to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales—will have taken note of his pertinent point.

Mr. Ron Davies: It never takes long for the Secretary of State to start discussing Labour policies; it would make a pleasant change if he started defending his own record. As it has been suggested that I have designs to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales, let me make it clear that I have no such designs.

Mr. Hague: The discussion precipitated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has turned out to be most useful because, after all that we have heard about super-quangos and so on, it turns out that it is not Labour's intention to abolish the board after all. No doubt, as the debate continues, we shall be able to enlighten ourselves about many other aspects of Labour policy as well as about the purpose of the Bill, to which subject I return.
Under section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the financial limit to which I have referred applies to the total cumulative amount of the sums granted


to the agency by the Government. The limit includes: the total of all grant in aid and public dividend capital, less repayments by the agency and excluding administrative expenses; the agency's outstanding borrowings; the third party loans guaranteed by the agency; and any sums issued by the Treasury in consequence of its guaranteeing agency borrowings that have not been repaid to the Treasury.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State is outlining the considerable sums that pass to the agency from the Treasury. Today's Western Morning News confirms that several businesses in Cornwall have been approached by organisations using Welsh Development Agency money to encourage them to relocate in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not Government policy to allow such development agencies to poach—especially from poor areas such as mine—and will he personally seek to ensure that such poaching is not repeated?

Mr. Hague: I can categorically assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not Government policy to poach companies from elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that it is not the policy of the Welsh Development Agency to do that. I would deprecate very strongly poaching from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, companies that are already located somewhere in the United Kingdom sometimes propose an expansion project or have definitely decided to leave their particular location, and that is a different matter. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman means by poaching; what I understand him to mean by that is certainly not the policy of the Government, or of the Welsh Development Agency or of the Development Board for Rural Wales.

Mr. Tom King: rose—

Mr. David Harris: rose—

Mr. Hague: The west country Members are most welcome at this debate on Welsh matters. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

Mr. King: I do not wish further to disrupt my right hon. Friend's speech, but I should like to welcome what he has just said because a firm in my constituency relocated to Wales with the benefit of substantial grants. We recognise the excellent work being done by the Welsh Development Agency and the serious problem of unemployment in Wales, with which the Government's policy has helped so significantly. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, however, that he will be vigilant in ensuring that firms that have not considered going to Wales are not attracted to do so when they might otherwise continue and expand in parts of the country that contribute through their taxes to the benefits that the Welsh Development Agency is able to offer, but which, despite having their own unemployment problems, do not have any particular inducements to offer?

Mr. Hague: Of course, we want to attract as much new investment to Wales as we possibly can, but that must not be done through poaching or in a way that destroys jobs in other parts of the United Kingdom. That, of course,

would not be a proper use of taxpayers' money. I am satisfied that the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales pursue that policy as rigorously as I would intend them to, which is very rigorously. Sometimes, one or two advertisements or statements have been misinterpreted, but I will certainly give the matter every consideration and be as firm in the future as I have been in the past to make sure that we are not poaching from or destroying jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harris: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the job losses that Cornwall has encountered in the past few weeks. Does he appreciate the anger that is felt in Cornwall when it suffers job losses, and an apparently well-documented example is given in today's Western Morning News of attempts to poach jobs and firms from Cornwall to Wales, and to south Wales in particular? Will he do what the Minister with responsibility for the south-west, our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has promised to do, which is to look into specific examples? If he finds that there have been attempts to poach, will he put an immediate end to the practice?

Mr. Hague: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. If there are well-documented examples—[Interruption.] Of course it remains to be seen. I have recently read many things in newspapers that I would not describe as well documented, but if there are well-documented examples, I shall consider them.
There should not be poaching from other parts of the United Kingdom, but I say without apology that where there are new investment projects that could go to anywhere in the United Kingdom, the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office will fight very hard for them to come to Wales.
Some situations are open to misinterpretation. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—I apologise for mentioning him in his absence, but I had not foreseen this point arising—criticised the agency for securing for Wales several hundred jobs in a company that was previously located in Hull. In fact, the company was closing in Hull anyway and was deciding whether to go to northern France or to Wales. The agency was right to fight for those jobs, but that is different from the poaching to which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sure that the Secretary of State will recall that what the deputy leader of the Labour party actually said was that the incident constituted one of the best arguments that he had ever heard for the English regions, including Yorkshire and Humberside, having regional development agencies of their own.

Mr. Hague: We continue to receive clarification of Labour party policy. I believe that the English regional assemblies would be a different matter. I doubt that the company in question, or companies in general, would be more inclined to locate in Hull because there was a regional assembly, just as I have grave doubts that any company would be more inclined to locate in Wales because there was a Welsh Assembly.
The Bill provides that future increases of the financial limit shall be made by secondary legislation, using the affirmative resolution procedure. The advantages are clear. It will reduce the burden on future legislative programmes while retaining proper accountability to the House and an opportunity to debate the issue.
The new limit should be sufficient for several years. The increase of the limit carries no implications for spending or policy decisions in future years. Such decisions will be made in the usual way, as part of public expenditure surveys. The revised financial limit will, however, provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the agency is properly resourced to undertake its existing programme of work and to take advantage of new opportunities that may arise.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State must know that there can be very few people in Wales who have not congratulated the WDA on its magnificent work in bringing investment into the country, but he must also be aware that many people, especially in my constituency, are deeply worried that some of the WDA's roles, such as land reclamation and urban renewal, have been completely ignored to enable it to make those magnificent achievements and attract inward investment from abroad. What will he do about tip reclamation schemes in places where we need the land very badly for indigenous industry, such as at Coedely and Cilfynydd, or for urban development, such as in Pontypridd?

Mr. Hague: Those urban programmes are not ignored. They remain important programmes and important objectives of the agency. Inward investment has been the agency's highest priority in recent times because there has been an unusual degree of opportunity to attract inward investment—I make no apology for that—but those other programmes are not ignored, and I shall mention them later if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
In November 1996, I announced a significant increase in the agency's base programme for the current financial year, from £120 million to £157 million. That included an increase of more than 60 per cent. in central Government provision to the agency to enable it to meet its commitments to the LG project and to fund other new inward investment projects throughout Wales.
The agency's budget for the coming year, which I announced in December, will similarly allow it to build on its existing successes and to increase its spending on strategic sites throughout Wales, to which I attach great importance. Central Government provision for the agency for next year will be £84.7 million and grant in aid is 8 per cent. above the equivalent figure for 10 years earlier in real terms. That will enable the agency to fund a base programme of £150 million in the forthcoming year.
The agency has a central role in the economic development of Wales. I should refer briefly to the functions and objectives of the agency as set out in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The agency exists
to further the economic development of Wales or any part of Wales; to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness
and
to further the improvement of the environment in Wales".

There can be no disputing the excellent results that the WDA has achieved. It has played a significant part in transforming the Welsh economy in line with the Government's priorities. As a result, we have today a more diverse and well-balanced industrial structure. Our manufacturing base, at 28 per cent. of gross domestic product, is one of the most dynamic in the United Kingdom. We have attracted new high-technology industries. Manufacturing output in Wales in the past two years has grown by well over 10 per cent. Production businesses have multiplied by about 46 per cent. since 1979 and indigenous companies—of which I shall say more in a moment—are taking full advantage of the tremendous sourcing opportunity provided by inward investors.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am sure that the Secretary of State will say something later about spreading prosperity throughout Wales, but I remind him of figures released by Plaid Cymru last year which show that 80 per cent. of the jobs created by the agency have occurred and, indeed, are predicted to occur within about 10 per cent. of the Welsh land area, and that 60 per cent. of Welsh unemployed people live outside the region specified for anticipated success. Does not that require pretty fundamental reconsideration of the WDA's strategy and is such reconsideration now afoot?

Mr. Hague: I shall come to that point. Indeed, I intend to announce a policy change on that matter, which I believe the hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome.
I was describing the agency's achievements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and the hon. Member for Truro will be pleased to note that since taking responsibility for inward investment in 1983, the agency has recorded an enormous number of inward investment projects—about 855—from overseas. Such projects have promised the creation or safeguarding of more than 100,000 jobs, and in the past calendar year alone, the agency has played its part in attracting £2.3 billion of investment and 15,000 jobs through 150 projects new to Wales—a record-breaking achievement. We have made an excellent start to 1997 and more good news is in the pipeline.
The consequence of those achievements is that unemployment has been reduced to 93,000. For the past six months, it has been falling by 18,000 a month. The news on long-term unemployment is also good. With the jobs come the wages that bolster local economies.
Securing the LG project is a tremendous achievement in terms of employment and investment, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the most significant project that Wales has ever seen and the largest inward investment project in Europe. It will bring with it about 6,100 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs, and it can benefit the whole of Wales. I congratulate all involved on that magnificent achievement.
The benefits of LG should not be confined to south-east Wales, and we are all working to ensure that they are spread throughout Wales. Immediately after the announcement, we moved quickly to set up a group comprising the many parts of the Welsh Office with an interest, the WDA, the training and enterprise councils,


the Employment Service and many local authorities, to ensure that Wales as a whole benefits from the LG investment.

Mr. Barry Jones: How does the Secretary of State, alongside the Welsh Development Agency, intend to tackle large-scale youth unemployment and long-term unemployment in constituencies such as mine? Is there a joint plan to tackle those problems in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside?

Mr. Hague: Yes, the plan is to continue the success in reducing unemployment—including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—that we have achieved in recent months. We started this year with the announcement that British Aerospace in his constituency is to create another 100 jobs. That was good news for his constituency, and I hope that it will receive more good news in the future. Long-term and youth unemployment is falling, as is unemployment as a whole.
On the LG project, wider issues are being considered, such as training skills, transport and component suppliers. Companies anywhere in Wales can do business with LG if they are able to meet the company's requirements. More and more companies are reinvesting in Wales, which shows their satisfaction with the Welsh work force and the confidence that they have in the strengths of the Welsh economy, and reinforces the successful image of Wales for prospective investors.
A number of very good announcements have recently been made: Sony is one and Bertrand Faure at Tredegar is another. However, it is essential that the role of indigenous companies is recognised in the same way as that of inward investors. Between January 1994 and December 1996, 141 foreign and 567 UK-owned companies received regional selective assistance payments towards projects in Wales. In the 10-year period to March 1996, almost 1,500 offers of regional selective assistance were accepted by UK-owned companies for projects in Wales, whereas fewer than 300 offers were accepted by foreign-owned businesses. During the same period, RSA totalling almost £215 million was paid to UK-owned companies, and nearly £213 million to foreign-owned concerns. It is clear that home-grown companies have received far more assistance than is commonly supposed.
Encouraging indigenous small firms to supply inward investors is part of the range of services that is now marketed under the Business Connect banner. In this financial year, Source Wales has helped 537 Welsh companies, and 112 deals have been won for those companies. The Source Wales database of 2,000 Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises assists in identifying supply opportunities to major manufacturing companies, not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The recent announcement about Halla's sourcing in north Wales—£1 million-worth of business—is a prime example of the benefits that the Source Wales programme brings to indigenous companies, and shows that major investments can benefit the whole of Wales rather than just the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Dais: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: I may give way again later in my speech, but in fairness to other hon. Members I should proceed.
Other agency initiatives to encourage indigenous firms include technology development and transfer. Under the regional technology action plan, the WDA is working with a large number of organisations to strengthen the Welsh innovation culture and to develop further the technological infrastructure in Wales, including Wales-wide telecoms cabling. Through the technology transfer initiative, more than 400 Welsh companies have been audited to establish the adequacy of their approach to innovation and technology. If the audits identify opportunities to improve competitiveness, European grants are available through the WDA to introduce technological solutions. In that way, companies throughout Wales have ready access to the best available expertise.
On finance for growth generally, the agency has moved from being a major investor in its own right to working in conjunction with the private sector to improve the availability of venture capital. In particular, it is now seeking to establish a network of "business angels", and has recently expanded its Eurolink scheme to operate worldwide, called Globalink, to establish for Welsh companies strong collaborative links with overseas business partners.
Thanks to those and other initiatives, and to the exceptionally favourable circumstances of the United Kingdom economy, business optimism remains positive in Wales, which shows that the Welsh economy is on a sound footing and that we can all have confidence in the future. Some recent surveys have shown Welsh business optimism to be the best in the United Kingdom.
Since 1979, the WDA has spent more than £820 million on property development, which has provided more that 20 million sq ft of floorspace. It has developed a network of new business parks across north and south and south-west Wales, taking full advantage of the A55 and M4 corridors, and has also pushed development into less accessible areas, a fine example of which is the Cleddau Bridge business park at Pembroke dock. A business park is also to be developed at Parc Pensarn, Carmarthen. The agency has placed ever-increasing emphasis on joint development projects with private sector partners.
After strong growth in auto-components jobs last year, the WDA has announced today that it will press ahead with a new business park in the Neath valley, which is designed specifically for automotive suppliers. It has awarded a £440,000 contract to install road and other services at the Neath Vale supplier park, which should be ready by May. Interest from potential tenants is high and the agency is talking to at least six companies, which together could bring 300 jobs to the area.
The agency's achievements do not end with job creation: that is the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It has also provided a better environment in which Welsh people can live and work. The agency's land reclamation programme has been huge. Since 1979, it has reclaimed 6,500 hectares of derelict land at more than 920 locations. Despite the pressures on spending and the priority rightly given to inward investment, the agency currently has almost 3,500 acres in the process of being reclaimed and, on current plans, some 1,850 acres will be completed in the next two years. That remains a massive programme by any standards, even though we must give higher priority to other areas.
In rural areas, under the agency's rural prosperity programme, £2.6 million has been invested in 248 projects selected by individual communities.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: I shall give way, but then I really must get on.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the acreage of land reclamation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred include the sites that are currently on hold as a result of the halt in budget development for the land reclamation programme?

Mr. Hague: The 3,500 acres include all projects, some of which are waiting for further attention, but the 1,850 acres to be completed in the next two years relate to projects that are either proceeding now or are certain to proceed in that period.
The rural programme to which I referred is part of the agency's wider development programme in rural areas which, in the period from 1991 to 1996, totalled some £34 million. Although £5.5 million of funding for small rural schemes will be transferred from the WDA to rural local authorities on 1 April this year, the agency will continue to play a significant role in rural areas. Indeed, £650,000 of rural funding will be retained by the agency to continue to fund LEADER and Interreg groups in the coming year, and a further £750,000 will be used to fulfil its commitment to the Welsh national botanical garden at Middleton. The agency is currently developing a strategy for rural economic development based on a package of services and capital projects, in conjunction with local authorities.
Despite those numerous successes, we know that there is more to do. We will continue to help to create jobs across a broad range of businesses. In addition to manufacturing, which remains a cornerstone of our economy, we want to see stronger services, with even more financial services and research and technology-based businesses in Wales—all of which, of course, offer above-average wages. In all those areas, the WDA will continue to play an active role.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: I must get on because I have given way a lot. If I have a little time in the next few minutes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must proceed with my speech.
We need to ensure that industry and commerce have the right supply of qualified, well-motivated people. That is why I have published the updates to two important Government programmes: "People and Prosperity: Building on Success", which I launched today and which concerns our agenda for action on training; and the initiative, "Bright Future: Beating our Previous Best", which I launched last week.
I have set the agency challenging targets to ensure that it directs its efforts towards what I believe to be the priorities for Wales. The agency has performed well

against its targets—we have not yet reached the end of the current financial year, yet a number of them have been exceeded. For the current year, I set a target of £650 million of private sector investment to be levered in. So far, the agency has reached £1,986 million. My target of 12,500 jobs to be created or safeguarded has been exceeded, with 13,860 jobs to date.
Wales and the WDA can be justifiably proud of that record and I want the WDA to continue doing what it does best—helping to create new jobs for all parts of Wales. I want more investment and more jobs in those parts of Wales that are still affected by the highest unemployment: parts of the west, north-west and valleys.
We are already doing a great deal to spread the benefits of the investment that has already been made: the Source Wales programme; encouragement to suppliers across Wales to link up with inward investors; ensuring that inward investors look at sites across Wales before they invest; and setting targets for the numbers of jobs outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.
The WDA has so far this financial year exceeded its target of 20 per cent. outside those eastern corridors by creating more than 32 per cent. of its jobs outside those areas. I have decided that it is now time to take further steps to ensure that areas that have so far not been the principal beneficiaries of inward investment can share in the growing success of Wales.
First, I will set new and more demanding targets for inward investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. Although the precise level of those targets remains for discussion, they will be significantly more demanding than the current target.
Secondly, I am asking the WDA, within agreed UK and European limits, to recognise the extra costs of locating in some areas by giving more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere. Ultimately, of course, the choice of a location is for the company but, we should make no mistake—it is no accident that companies are coming to Wales. I intend to ensure that companies keep coming and that they come to all parts of Wales. The two initiatives will form part of the policy guidance and direction that I intend to give the agency in the future.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice; two hon. Members want to intervene.

Mr. Anderson: The initiatives are certainly welcome. The Secretary of State's guidance is for the future and critics will say that it is guidance in the very dying days of this Parliament. Even in December, the agency killed a £3 million project for a science and technology centre at Penllergaer, near Swansea. People will ask why. The guidance is welcome, but why is it so belated? The facts have been apparent for years.

Mr. Hague: There is no need to apologise for the way in which the agency has approached such matters in recent years. It has been extremely important to bring large investments into any part of Wales for which they can be secured. Of course, the company plays a large role in choosing the location.
Now that we have had spectacular success in some areas, it is right to say that we would be prepared to pay more for any given project to go to a new area than to go to an area where a large project had already been established. It would have been wrong to say that in the past, but now it is fair. We should concentrate resources to a somewhat greater extent on areas that have not been the principal beneficiaries of large-scale inward investment.

Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: This will have to be the last time that I give way.

Mr. Ainger: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. May I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), say that the investment is belated but welcome? The Welsh Office has been advised by the WDA that in areas of high unemployment—especially those in my constituency, in south-west Wales and in north-west Wales, such as the Holyhead travel-to-work area—enterprise zones should be re-established as a key marketing ploy. Can the Secretary of State explain why that recommendation has been rejected by the Welsh Office?

Mr. Hague: We have been over that ground before. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's view is that enterprise zones are of assistance mainly where there has been a failure in the private sector property market. They can help in some cases, but not in others. We had little or no evidence that enterprise zones would be of direct help in those cases. As he knows, a great deal of other assistance is available to his constituency and to other parts of west Wales. Greater assistance may be available after what I have said this evening.
The priorities for the future of the agency are clear. I expect it to focus particularly on inward investment and indigenous business growth. Safeguarding and creating jobs in Wales is paramount, although the agency has other responsibilities as well. I shall continue to press on the WDA the points to which I referred this evening, when we meet later this month.
I know that Opposition Members have criticised the budget for the coming year, although at £150 million of gross expenditure and £85 million of Government grant, it is a very large programme. In recent weeks, Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves to the existing spending ceilings of the Welsh Office for the next two years, while also increasing local government spending and setting up an assembly. Against such a background, they would have little hope of providing the level of resources that I am providing, let alone increasing it. If they can work out how they would provide such an increase, we would be interested to hear about it tonight.
We can all agree on the need to make the most of the agency's success. The chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe, and his team have worked hard to ensure that the agency adheres to the principles of compliance, openness and financial regularity that we expect from public bodies in Wales. They have worked hard at presenting the agency and a successful Wales to the world. The agency deserves the support of all of us in that. It is concentrating on what it excels at—winning jobs and investment for Wales.
I want the agency to build on those foundations and to achieve even greater success. With this Government, it has a secure future in further developing the increasing prosperity of Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: I begin on a note of agreement and join the Secretary of State in expressing my congratulations to the chairman, the board and all the staff of the Welsh Development Agency on having served the agency and the people of Wales well over the years. I especially congratulate the chairman, who had a difficult inheritance. Perhaps I shall return to that.
Although the Bill is specific, the debate has been wide ranging. The Secretary of State reviewed events over the past 20 years. I shall touch on some of those, as history can be interpreted in more than one way.
A number of initiatives were announced by the Secretary of State this evening. I broadly welcome them, as far as I understand them. I shall examine them in detail and apply the critical test by asking what resources will be available to ensure that those initiatives are carried through.
I was particularly interested in the Secretary of State's statement about ensuring that future developments take place outwith the hot area along the M4 corridor between Newport and Bridgend.
At present there is little evidence that the WDA or the Welsh Office has succeeded in getting investment out of that area, or that either of them understands the problems that are already developing, especially in the Newport area, as a result of the skills shortages stemming largely from the failure of the Welsh Office to offer a co-ordinated programme to provide skills or to provide adequate resources for the training and enterprise councils.
The Bill is a technical measure and is largely non-controversial. I put on record my broad support for it. We will assist its passage through the various parliamentary procedures.
There are two elements to the Bill: first, the increase in the statutory financial limit, which we would obviously support. The Government presumably regard it as particularly important in the light of the spending commitments that they have entered into in respect of the LG development at Newport.
Secondly, the Bill provides for future increases in the statutory financial limit to be made by means of secondary legislation—an interesting and novel proposition. It fits very well with our proposals for the introduction of a Welsh Assembly—secondary legislation could then be dealt with by that assembly. I know that there is an argument against using secondary legislation to introduce the increases—it is claimed that those increases should be subject to debate and scrutiny in Parliament. But the Welsh Assembly will provide the ideal opportunity for proper public debate.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall tell him why. He has been a Member of the House since 1992—almost five years—


including a brief and relatively undistinguished career on the Government Front Bench. In that five years he has shown no understanding of the normal courtesies of Parliament. Until he does, I have no intention of giving way to him on this or any other occasion.
The debate about the provision of secondary legislation is interesting and it may well be pursued in Committee. It is an interesting comment on the legislative arrangements in the House that, when dealing with a Bill such as this—involving a minor technical matter on which there is broad agreement—the Government have to suspend the Standing Orders of the House, as they did last Friday, to take away from the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament their existing rights, under Standing Order No. 86, to sit on the Committee that will deal with the legislation.
Last year was the 20th birthday of the Welsh Development Agency and I took the opportunity over the weekend to read with interest the debate that took place on the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill. The debate was initiated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who has taken a great interest in the proceedings and developments of the agency ever since. During the Second Reading debate, the WDA was vigorously opposed by the then Conservative Front-Bench team. The then hon. Member for Pembroke, Mr. Edwards, addressing my right hon. and learned Friend, said:
He seeks to interfere where he should leave alone. He seeks to dictate where he should give freedom … He persists with policies that will destroy confidence.
He then asked the House to reject the Bill establishing the Welsh Development Agency.
It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is in his place. At the time—and I believe subsequently—he was one of the strongest opponents of the WDA. He said:
For the Government to become involved themselves in industry is an admission of failure. We may be sure that where private industry cannot succeed the Government will almost certainly fail."—[Official Report, 26 June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 712, 790]
He and all other Conservative Members of Parliament voted against the creation of the WDA.
Since then, and especially since 1979, the Conservative party and successive Conservative Secretaries of State have been consistent about only two matters. I hope that the present Secretary of State, who has a few weeks left in the job, will pay attention to these important matters. I understand that he was a 16-year-old at the time, causing great embarrassment to himself and the Conservative party with a speech in which he called on the Conservatives to roll back the frontiers of the state. Perhaps these are the frontiers of the state that he wanted to roll back.
Successive Conservative Secretaries of State have been consistent about only two things. First, they have never reconciled themselves to the agency or to the concept of partnership. Secondly, they have been consistent in their determination to use the agency's successes for their own party political purposes.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to mention that when my right hon. and noble

Friend Lord Crickhowell and I came into office, we decided to retain the agency and placed it on a new and reformed basis so that it has succeeded in avoiding many of the pitfalls that we envisaged for it at the time.

Mr. Davies: There has been no change in the agency's statutory basis. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has used that argument before, but there has been no change in the agency's statutory basis, and he and his colleagues opposed its creation. The right hon. Gentleman has loyally served several Secretaries of State who have done their very best since 1979 to undermine not only the integrity, but the existence of the WDA.
I remind the present Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State of the regime that existed under Dr. Gwyn Jones, the former disgraced chairman of the agency and a pal of Lord Walker. I shall remind the Secretary of State of what the Public Accounts Committee said of the regime under the then Secretary of State and Dr. Gwyn Jones. It said in paragraph 3.(xviii) of its 47th report on the WDA's accounts for 1991–92 that it was
unacceptable that the Welsh Office took no action against anyone in the top echelons of the Agency who presided over a catalogue of serious and inexcusable breaches of expected standards of control and accountability.
The Secretary of State's predecessor, the free market anti-Welsh Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), cut the WDA's budget—its grant in aid—by two thirds. He enforced on the WDA a policy of property sales that wreaked havoc in 1995–96. The agency's ability to prepare on the basis of stability and sustainability has still not been restored. Peter Walker, now Lord Walker, attempted covert privatisation with Operation Wizard. The right hon. Member for Wokingham was less subtle; he preferred to emasculate the agency by imposing ferocious cuts in its budget.
I want to press three charges against the present Secretary of State. First, he has ruthlessly suppressed the findings enclosed in the WDA's corporate plan submitted to the Welsh Office in August. That plan for the forthcoming financial year reveals a number of interesting figures about the state of the Welsh economy.
First, the plan reveals that Welsh gross domestic product is 16 per cent. below the UK average. It reveals that Welsh household income is 77 per cent. of the UK average. It reveals that between 1990–95, real GDP in Wales rose by 3.3 per cent., whereas real GDP in the UK as a whole rose by 5.4 per cent. It reveals that real services GDP in Wales rose by 5.6 per cent., whereas in the UK as a whole it rose by 8.5 per cent. No amount of propaganda can disguise the true impact of those figures on our Welsh communities. We have now had 18 years of Conservative government and the relative position of the Welsh economy is no better than it was in 1979 when the Conservatives took office. Today we have 200,000 fewer people in work than when the present Prime Minister took office in 1990.
Secondly, the present Secretary of State has denied the WDA the funds required for long-term stability even though he claims that it is his protected and favoured expenditure programme. To do what little he has, he has—as he announced to me last Monday in a parliamentary answer—cut the budgets of the agriculture, training, roads, housing, environmental services and


education programmes. Those cuts have been imposed to pay for the small increase in his economic development programme.
In the current financial year—in November 1996—to avert the crisis of his own making, the Secretary of State had to inject an emergency package of £25 million into the agency. Even with that experience of the damage caused by underfunding, the base programme for the next financial year, at £150 million, will be a lot less than required.
The agency itself—on page 17 of its corporate plan, which it submitted on 26 July 1996 to the Welsh Office—called for base expenditure of £178 million, plus European funding. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) are particularly concerned about cuts in the land reclamation programme. The information that I am about to provide will very clearly explain to them why those cuts are about to be implemented.

Mr. Hague: Would the hon. Gentleman increase the agency's programme for the coming year?

Mr. Davies: Let us deal with the current budget. As soon as the Secretary of State and the Government can pluck up the courage to face the electorate, we will have an election. As soon as we have a new Government, that Government will set about delivering their own programmes. I am now telling the Secretary of State of the consequences of the guidance that he gave to the Welsh Development Agency and of the—I believe dishonest—failure on his part to provide it with funds to perform those actions that he has publicly required it to do.
On page 17 of the corporate plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State last July, the agency called for £178 million base expenditure, plus European funding. It stated:
This would enable the Agency to achieve its objectives and the targets set out in the strategic guidance letter"—
which is the public guidance that the Secretary of State provides to the agency for the forthcoming year. The agency told the Secretary of State that that amount would be required to meet his own, publicly stated guidance.
The report went on to state:
Whilst funding at this level would not be sufficient for the agency to secure the very large inward investment projects, this would enable it to deliver a range of programmes consistent with its short, medium and long-term strategies for development and job creation in Wales.
Activity would be centred on converting existing projects, providing the base for future investment, re-establishing the land reclamation programme towards previous millennium targets and maintaining the infrastructure projects at broadly current levels.
Therefore, to stand still, next year the agency will require £180 million-plus, whereas its budget is £150 million, which is £30 million less than it told the Secretary of State it requires to meet his targets. Of that £150 million, some £25 million is already earmarked for the LG development at Newport. The reality is that there will be savage cuts in the agency's programme, and the effective end of any more major inward investment projects. Quite simply, the agency does not have the

money to perform those tasks that, 10 or 15 minutes ago, the Secretary of State told the House that it intended to perform.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not that put in context the two new pledges made by the Secretary of State on increasing investment in west Wales? If the resources are not there, they will not happen.

Mr. Davies: That is exactly the case. It is also true that the Secretary of State said in this debate, in reply to an intervention, that, in the next two years, there would be a guaranteed land reclamation programme. To my knowledge, no such announcement has been made by the Welsh Development Agency, and no financial provision is being made to allow such land reclamation work to proceed. I look forward with great interest to hearing some clarification on those matters, perhaps in the Minister's reply to this debate. If he cannot clarify the matter today, perhaps the Secretary of State will write to me and tell me when those decisions were taken, when they will be made public, what financial provision is being made and when he intends to tell local authorities about the decisions that he has apparently made.

Dr. Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was very unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State refused to name the big schemes included in those 3,000-odd acres, and that some reclamation schemes are a good deal less expensive to implement than others? If one has to detoxify land and cart away thousands of tonnes of toxic material from sites, it will bite into any agency's budget. To learn now that those projects are in doubt for the immediate future will do nothing for the confidence of the communities that will have to put up with that stuff for generations.

Mr. Davies: I know very well the site referred to by my hon. Friend, and the site at Treharris, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. From my own experience—if I may be a constituency Member of Parliament for a moment—I am also very familiar with the situation at Bargoed, which provides the clearest testament of the WDA's failure to possess a sustainable budget. Work finished two years ago at the Bargoed colliery tip. Half the tip was removed, but the other half is still in place, dominating the entire central part of the Rhymney valley. All my hon. Friends who represent former mining constituencies are well aware of the inadequacies of this budget and of the WDA's inability to sustain a land reclamation programme.
The third charge I make against the Secretary of State is that, whereas he has been more than anxious to try to take party political credit for the WDA's endeavours—especially for the LG investment—he has been singularly uninterested in developing an analysis of the various needs of Wales's economic regions, and especially of the hard-pressed west. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) was very anxious to speak in this debate, but he has had to leave the Chamber because representatives from his constituency are visiting.
The Secretary of State has also not shown any interest in the case for developing our indigenous industries. Barry Hartop was a very successful chief executive, and he played a crucial role in attracting LG to Newport. He could have played an equally important role in ensuring


maximum spin-off benefit from that investment. I would have been the first to congratulate him and to wish him well had he found other opportunities to use his skills. However, I think that the Secretary of State's connivance—a word which I use advisedly—in releasing Mr. Hartop on a "sale-or-return" basis to the Conservative party's pet project, the Greenwich millennium dome, was not only insulting to Wales but, by leaving the agency without a chief executive at this crucial time, likely to prejudice the chances of our getting maximum benefit from LG.
The coming general election will be important for the Welsh Development Agency, and I have been open about our intentions for the agency. I want it to operate within a new democratic framework, and to retain its operational independence. I believe that it can continue to play a crucial role, and I want to see its funding put on a more secure and sustainable basis. I also want it to develop a closer working relationship with the other development agencies, and specifically with providers of education and training.
The conflicting pressures within the Conservative party are now clear for all to see. We had a graphic demonstration of those pressures at the start of this debate. Conservative Members cannot agree on their own devolution policy, and they cannot agree on their policies for regional economic development. For us, the Welsh Development Agency is an essential instrument for economic development. For the Conservatives, it is increasingly becoming an unwanted, unacceptable and expensive mechanism which interferes in the operation of the free market. Many in the Cabinet—such as the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury—would be happy to see the end of the agency and the Welsh Office's ability to make independent bids for inward investment.
I should be happy for the Bill to secure a speedy passage through Parliament. I would be happier still, and I believe that the nation would also be happier, if the Government were to have a speedy passage from office. They show no real understanding of the problems of Wales; therefore, they have no long-term strategy to deal with them.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I must begin by nailing the travesty of the truth perpetrated by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). As I remember his speech, he said that, over the past 18 years, the Government appear to have attempted to undermine the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency. That bit of rewriting history really does equate with some of the worst rewrites in the history of modern Europe.
We all know that the WDA is and has been one of the most important engines in the transformation of the Welsh economy that we have seen over the past 18 years. Its achievements have been astonishing, and astonishingly good for Wales; and we should not forget them. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly implied, they were summed up in the concise document published last year on the occasion of the WDA's 20th anniversary. The document was entitled "Twenty Reasons To Celebrate", and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has updated those achievements today.
The agency has helped to bring hundreds of new international companies and tens of thousands of new manufacturing jobs to Wales, and it is still doing so—one need look only at the enormous current investment in Newport by the Korean company LG, and the 6,100 jobs in the pipeline. I am sure that, even as I speak, the agency is in touch with other potential investors in Wales from all over the world. I am sure that we all hope that its efforts will continue, and will result in further successes.
Compared with the billions of pounds of investment secured for Wales—I believe that it had reached £6.7 billion last year; that is only since 1983, and my right hon. Friend has updated that figure by a couple of billion pounds yet again today—the WDA's total funding, even with the enhanced limit set out in the Bill, almost pales into insignificance.
Inward investment, however, is only one aspect of the WDA's activities. It has literally prepared the ground and provided well-infrastructured land and buildings, not only for inward investors but for developing local businesses, and it has sought to improve and assist them by a variety of means, including the Source Wales programme, Eurolink and now Globalink. The Source Wales programme has helped to secure international orders for some 500 Welsh businesses.
The agency's flexibility, entrepreneurial thrust and expertise has, on the whole, been a great asset in many areas, and has helped to loosen some long-standing logjams in development, sometimes not without risk to its own reputation.
The agency's work in land reclamation has already been mentioned. I regard it as a triumph of persistence, and the face of Wales looks much better as a consequence. Last year, when the agency celebrated its 20th anniversary, 15,000 acres—the equivalent of 4,000 rugby pitches—had been reclaimed, providing land for 180 industrial sites and factory premises employing 25,000 people, as well as land for homes, hospitals, schools and parks.
There is hardly a significant town in Wales that does not have a WDA presence. I regard urban regeneration as an extension of the land reclamation policy. Some 40 towns in Wales are earmarked for economic and environmental renewal, with some £120 million of agency money generating about £200 million of private investment.
I have only touched on some of the agency's considerable achievements of the past few years, but I think I have said enough to justify my belief that the agency has given extremely good value for money to Wales and the British taxpayer—long may it continue to do so.
I am sure it is only through the agency and the allied efforts that we are going to get good-quality jobs, raise average incomes in Wales and bring work to our westernmost areas and outside the M4 and A55 corridors, where the unemployment percentages are very high in some places, although the actual numbers involved are small compared with the industrialised areas of east Wales. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his new policy guidelines to be given to the agency, to extend its efforts in the most rural western areas.
The Government's financial strategy of requiring the agency to generate a substantial proportion of its base programme costs is, I agree, challenging, but it is surely


right—we do not want the agency sitting back and playing landlord on an ever-increasing industrial property estate. That would be bad for the agency, and might skew, if not emasculate, its entrepreneurial thrust. Enabling investors to purchase gives them a bigger stake in their success on site, wherever they have settled, and spreads any risk to the taxpayer's investment.
The European connection is also looming large in importance. The WDA acted as a focus for Welsh representation in Brussels, and has extended its office there from the public to the private sector. Wales is one of the first regions to have received European Commission funding for a regional technology plan, designed to promote investment in innovation and technology. That is a very important step forward, full of promise for the development of the Welsh economy.
I pay tribute to the agency for its active support of the Welsh link with the four motor regions—the most advanced regions in Europe—which enabled many companies in Wales to develop links with those markets, something that they would not otherwise have been able to do.
Not unexpectedly, the agency's life has not been without its troubles. It is a measure of the stature of the present chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe, that he has been able not only to deal with the mistakes of the past but to keep the agency's eyes fixed on achieving its targets for the present and the future.
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly pay tribute to the chairman and his team, as he does deserve our thanks for restoring the agency's good name and reputation. He certainly has my admiration, and I have no doubt that he is probably the best chairman the agency has ever had. Praise in the Chamber for anyone outside is such a rare delicacy that I should perhaps say immediately that I have no interest to declare, and that my paean is beyond suspicion.
What is to be the future of the agency which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), whom I am glad to see in his place, had the foresight to establish, and which we had the wisdom to reform and retain on a new basis, in spite of our earlier critical opposition? Perhaps none of us at that time foresaw just how much we would need the agency and how much success it would achieve for Wales—140,000 jobs created or safeguarded since 1983 alone, which is certainly no mean achievement.
It has never been clear what future the Opposition have in mind for the agency, other than that it would be responsible to the proposed assembly. I hope that that does not lead to internal meddling and parochialism, but I have to say that I suspect the worst.
I read the article in The Western Mail this morning by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, and was more confused than enlightened by it. My impression was that other hands were involved in the writing of it, but I do not know whether I am right. The hon. Gentleman was happy to acknowledge Labour's parentage of the Welsh Development Agency, but he was also prepared to damn with faint praise its other offspring—the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. He almost implied that they were surplus to requirements. He said:
It is wasteful and bureaucratic to have the WDA, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Office Industry Department, the Land Authority for Wales and Local Enterprise Agencies.

I believe these bodies should be streamlined to achieve substantial cost savings".

Mr. Ron Davies: indicated assent.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is nodding. We normally understand the word "streamlining" in that context as meaning being steamrollered. I suspect that that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If the Development Board for Rural Wales is included in that threat of streamlining, I am sure that his ideas will go down like a lead balloon in mid-Wales. Putting the land authority under threat will fall like a ton of bricks on the construction industry.
It is becoming clear from the hon. Gentleman's article and his comments this evening about the agency's need for additional funds where he will get those funds. The streamlining of the agencies will provide funding not just for the WDA, but for the new Welsh Assembly. Eliminating those valuable bodies that have done worthwhile work for Wales may be one way of funding the assembly.

Mr. Davies: I did not say that

Sir Wyn Roberts: Even if the hon. Gentleman did not say it, he wrote it.

Mr. Davies: I did not.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The words are staring us in the face. We know what he means by "streamlining" the operations. Whatever happens, I hope, for the sake of the people of Wales, that the agency will not be diverted from its main tasks, which it has performed with great distinction.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Welsh Development Agency. More than 20 years ago, I had the privilege of introducing the Second Reading debate, as we have been reminded this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) looks to the future of the WDA. I read his article in The Western Mail, and I did not get the impression formed by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). Streamlining is a bogeyman—a windmill that the right hon. Gentleman has erected to have it knocked down. Nobody else in his right senses—I do not mean to be unduly disparaging about the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time and whom I regard with great friendship—would come to that conclusion.
My understanding of what my hon. Friend was saying is that, first, we need to examine the role of the WDA after 20 years. Surely that must be right. Secondly, we must examine how it fits in with the other economic agencies in Wales. Thirdly, we must reform where necessary. Is there anything wrong with that? I should have thought that Conservative Members would grasp the opportunity with both hands.
I had the privilege of setting up three bodies in Wales that have survived 18 years of Tory rule. They have survived because the Conservative party could not think of anything better. Over that time, the economic problems have increased.
I shall remind the House why the WDA, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales were set up. Contrary to the expectations of my officials, we got two major economic Bills on the legislative programme, and a large part of a third. The WDA was parallel to the Scottish Development Agency. Through the good offices of Lord Callaghan, who took a great interest, we got the measure through because of that parallel.
The measure's primary purpose was to deal with the inevitable rundown of the steel, coal and slate industries. The Conservatives did their damnedest to oppose the measure. They tried to delay it, they voted against it on Second Reading—the right hon. Member for Conwy is the only Welsh Tory left in the House of the 158 Conservatives who voted against—and, in Committee, they opposed some of the powers of the agency that they have since clutched to their bosoms.
I made a personal pledge on the DBRW many years before I came to the House. The aim was to bring together and put on a statutory basis all the non-statutory bodies in mid-Wales, in fulfilment of Huw T. Edwards' council for Wales report. I believed that the fine touch of the paintbrush that the DBRW could bring would be able to deal with the small problems in many areas that the WDA could not manage because it would be immersed in the huge problems of the major industries.
The Land Authority for Wales is unique. It has done very well from the time of its first chairman, Baroness White of Rhymney. I commend it for bringing together parcels of land, including in my constituency. There is nothing like it in the rest of the United Kingdom. John Silkin introduced the Bill and I had the privilege of winding up on it. He told me that he wished that he could have done the same in England. Regrettably, there was no regional parallel, and perhaps the regions of England lacked the political will to set up such a body.
I praise the Government for having allowed the three bodies to survive. Each has done a great deal of work. My only wish is that they had had more resources.
I regret the short, unhappy period that the WDA has been through. The choice of people to run it—a political decision—and the lack of Welsh Office control reflect badly on the Welsh Office, particularly its administrators. Enough has been said and written, and I shall not repeat it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will shortly have control of the WDA. When I set the agency up, in accordance with the terms of the Act I had the privilege of choosing the first chief executive. Now that is a matter for the board. I do not think that we have yet been told who the new chief executive is to be—I am sorry that I missed the first few minutes of the Secretary of State's speech. When shall we be told?
That is an important issue, and we should know at the earliest opportunity. The job is too big to be left fallow, being carried out on an acting basis, however estimable the people concerned, who are trying their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly may well have to keep an eye on that when he becomes Secretary of State.
I do not know what the current pattern is. The Secretary of State may have improved on what happened when I was involved. I had monthly meetings with the

chairman and the chief executive. We considered what had happened during the past month and what was going to happen in the next month, perhaps looking further ahead. There were guidelines. Perhaps they are still there. Perhaps the machinery has been improved. I hope so, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The period when the WDA went out of control—the DBRW went a little out of control as well—showed how palsied the grasp of the Welsh Office was on these important agencies.
There is always a danger that such a body, like a nationalised industry, will create its own momentum and get out of the control of the Government Department, adopting its own self-defence mechanism and its own machinery of secrecy. I had to deal with that as a very young man, with the National Coal Board and, later, the railways. Indeed, I had to help to remove the chairman of the British Railways Board. That had never been done before. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly was right to say that there must be clear lines of political responsibility and accountability—lines that were lacking during that difficult period.
Let me deal briefly with the power to spend. In today's The Western Mail, my hon. Friend said:
Expenditure is set to be cut by £10m in real terms this year, and in the past few years the Welsh Office grant was first slashed to £25m and now restored to its previous level of £85m. Such arbitrary decisions are a handicap to long-term planning.
My hon. Friend underplayed it. Whatever the amount at the WDA's disposal, what is needed is some assurance for the future, along with some consistency. The decisions to which my hon. Friend referred are not a "handicap", but the antithesis of long-term planning—if he was right in what he said.
I commend what has been done by successive Secretaries of State, and by the WDA, about inward investment; but it is bananas to suggest, as some industrial commentator suggested the other day, that it all began in 1983. It began long before my time, or my predecessor's. Members of the development corporation, including Douglas Badham and Meirion Lewis, all played their part.
Like the Secretary of State, no doubt, I have spent long, weary hours, day after day, talking to banks and other financial institutions in various countries—Japan, in particular—not knowing, because the people were so courteous, whether I was making any impact. When I arrived in the Welsh Office, Sony employed 200 people, and National Panasonic had not yet come to Wales. Ford has come in our time, and a host of other expansions has taken place.
It takes years for decisions about inward investment to be made. I commend what has been done with regard to LG, but I should like to know how long the campaign has taken. I know that it will continue long after the Secretary of State has gone to other pastures—it is a continuous process—but we should be glad of the results, wherever they come from, as long as the impetus is there and the good work goes on.
Along with a number of my colleagues representing West Glamorgan and counties further west, such as Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, I went to see the Secretary of State, who is always extremely courteous and willing to see hon. Members. We drew attention to our difficulties.
As I have said, I welcome what has happened with LG—or will happen—but we were anxious about the fact that we had not received our share of the cake.


The Secretary of State spelled out today what he indicated to us then. He has not much time to fulfil his pledge—this was a deathbed repentance—but I welcome it, none the less. He said that he would tilt the balance, in regard to financial and other incentives, in favour of areas that had not gained in the past. That is good news, although it has come late in the day.
On 28 January, the Secretary of State kindly answered a question that I had asked. I asked how many new industries had made inward investments in the past five years, and was told that there had been additions to some existing industries. I was pleased to hear about Sumitomo, and offer my congratulations. Nevertheless, against the background of the jobs—at least 10,000—that have been lost in my local steel industry, the Sumitomo investment will not mean many jobs. If there has been only one new overseas investor in five years, something must be wrong.
We have great expectations of the WDA and BP Chemicals Ltd., which have joined forces to plan an energy park. New industries may well come to that park: I hope so. I believe that the chairman of the WDA went to the area last May. It is high time that the promise made then was kept, and a start made on the infrastructure, roads and amenities to attract visiting industrialists. I hope that the work will start before too long.
Believe it or not, Wales is not lushly provided with large industrial areas likely to attract incoming industry, and we should therefore maximise those that we have. We should not split them up into penny packets, and when we have them we should market them as hard as we can. I wish the WDA well, and hope that my area sees some fruits from the endeavours of inward investors before long. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly well in his task of piloting the WDA in the near future.

Mr. Rod Richards: Judging by his speech, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) learnt his economics at TUC conference fringe meetings. He turned down my attempt to intervene on him when he raised the issue of a Welsh Assembly; I shall say to him now what I wanted to say earlier. He has written a letter putting the case—as he sees it—for a Welsh Assembly, which has been circulated by local authorities. I should like to know who paid for them to circulate it. Public funds may have been used to promote party propaganda.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly congratulated the WDA on the successes that it has achieved over many years, but others have been involved in those successes. Attention should be drawn to the considerable role played by the Department in the achievements of which we continually read. Nor, so far, have we heard about the economic context in which the WDA and the Welsh Office have been operating. Ultimately, whether people invest from outside—or reinvest from inside—depends on their confidence in the country's economy: for any investor, the bottom line is the return that he expects to receive.
The macro-economic context in which the WDA has achieved its successes is unparalleled in western Europe, certainly nowadays. We live in a time of historically low inflation and interest rates, and a stable and strong currency. One of the most important factors, which certainly did not exist 20 years ago, is our flexible work

force. Inward investors are always comparing the current flexibility with the position 15 or 20 years ago. At that time, Britain was known as the sick man of Europe because of its poor industrial relations, whereas today it is widely recognised as the enterprise centre of Europe.
Such confidence and stability as we now enjoy could be undermined by our European partners' policies, which they would have us implement, in particular the working time directive, which would damage jobs and prospects of inward investment, and a minimum wage. Again, for anyone selling the economy and the prospect of investing in this country, those policies would be to the detriment of future investment. Another reason—which people seldom recognise publicly—why people from abroad invest in Wales and Great Britain is that we are an English-speaking nation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned changes in policy or in the modus operandi of the Welsh Development Agency. Many of us who represent seats in north Wales, mid-Wales or west Wales would welcome that greatly. He said that greater emphasis would now be placed on the parts of Wales with high unemployment, which, by and large, are perceived by many who live in those regions to have been disadvantaged, so his statement is timely.
Opposition Members will recognise that, these days, unemployment in their constituencies, which traditionally has been high, is very low compared with before. That reflects the success of the Government's macro-economic policy and of the WDA's policy.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), a near neighbour of mine, mention unemployment in his constituency. Judging by the House of Commons Library publication on unemployment by constituency, unemployment in Alyn and Deeside stands at some 4.8 per cent., but the Welsh average is 7.4 per cent. I see many Opposition Members who I am sure are delighted at the much lower unemployment in their constituencies. For example, in Islwyn, the level is 5.4 per cent., in Delyn it is 5.6 per cent., in Pontypridd it is 5.6 per cent, in Bridgend it is 5.7 per cent. and in Wrexham it is 5.8 per cent. All those unemployment levels are much lower than they have been and reflect the Government's success.
At the top end of the scale of unemployment levels, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed in his speech, we have Caernarfon at 11.1 per cent., Pembroke at 10.8 per cent.—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Although this is a Second Reading debate and therefore, by definition, reasonably broad, the hon. Gentleman is stretching the case. May I ask him to return to the substance of the Bill?

Mr. Richards: I was welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks that the Welsh Development Agency will be addressing the regions with much higher unemployment, which are to the north and west of Wales. The unemployment level in regions where it has been traditionally high is far more acceptable—if unemployment is ever acceptable—than it might otherwise have been.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he replies to the debate, to address one or two questions, although he may not have the opportunity to comment on


them then; I hope, however, that he will find time to write to me about them. The first is on the distribution of the Welsh Development Agency budget. One of the concerns that we have in the north and rural parts of Wales involves forward commitments, within the properties budget, in different regions. It appears that the forward commitments, certainly in south Wales, are a high proportion of the budget allocated to that region, whereas the forward commitments elsewhere tend to be lower.
That creates a certain inflexibility in relation to future investment. What tends to happen is that, because of the high propensity towards forward commitments, moneys are moved from the regions that appear to have funds to spare and are transferred from one region to another. That means that in, for example, parts of north Wales, funds are not always available—this, I believe, is the position at present—to acquire land or to bring about the infrastructure changes that are necessary to attract investors, be they indigenous or from overseas. That critically affects forward planning in—in my case—north Wales, so the question to my hon. Friend the Minister is: what is the distribution of capital investment by geographic region and how does he expect that to be addressed?
The other point is the cost per job. Clearly, as I mentioned, investment is a matter of confidence in the economy, but confidence varies from region to region. I mentioned unemployment levels in parts of south Wales. Business and economic confidence in those parts would clearly be greater than, say, in Ynys Môn or in parts of Pembroke, where unemployment is high. Therefore, the case must be put—I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed this in his speech—that the cost per job should be greater, or should be allowed to be greater, in regions where unemployment is very high.
We have all heard about the impact that 6,000 jobs from LG will have on Newport's economy, but the equivalent in a place such as Holyhead would be 50 jobs. There needs to be a greater allowance, to attract jobs to the parts of Wales that are perceived as economically unattractive. Therefore, it would greatly benefit us in north Wales to know precisely what the cost per job has been historically, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to allow the Welsh Development Agency to spend in future.
I take my hat off, as did the hon. Member for Caerphilly, not just to the chairman and board of the Welsh Development Agency, but obviously to all the staff who work there, as well as to officials in my right hon. Friend's Department who have contributed. In some cases, local authorities have also made a significant contribution towards attracting investment from many parts of the world.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sure that it will not have escaped your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, as the debate was starting, there were two interventions from hon. Members representing constituencies in Cornwall—one of them my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). Those interventions told their own story, that the Welsh Development Agency

and indeed the Development Board for Rural Wales have been considerable successes, that they are envied in other parts of Britain and that Wales's attractions, which have no need of poaching but which are facilitated by Wales's economic development agencies, give us in Wales a significant advantage in trying to obtain the jobs that are capable of coming from elsewhere. The successes of the WDA and the DBRW tell us that others should perhaps be given the opportunity of setting up development agencies of their own where they do not exist, for they, too, could benefit from the disciplines that can be applied by those agencies.
I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). In the 14 years that I have represented Montgomeryshire, I have seen the fruit of the vision that he had when he created the Development Board for Rural Wales. When he created the DBRW, he had a clear and close understanding of rural, mid and west Wales. The board has worked extremely well. I am sure that he acknowledges that change is necessary as the years go by, and that the way in which the organisations function must change from time to time.
In my view, the linkage provided by Mr. Rowe-Beddoe during his chairmanship of both organisations has been valuable for two reasons. First, both the WDA and the DBRW went through short periods of which they cannot be proud, and there was good reason for ensuring that the management disciplines that were applied were extremely rigorous. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe applies rigorous management disciplines, and the performance of the senior executives in both organisations is evidence of that.
Secondly, the linkage has been useful because it has enabled the two organisations not merely to work closely together, but to learn more of each other's differing disciplines. However, it would be a disastrous mistake if any member of any political party or any Government were to take the view that there was now no need to distinguish between the way in which economic development should be managed in rural, mid and west Wales and the way in which it should be managed in the rest of Wales. The problems remain as different now as they were when the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon set up the two organisations. They were set up quite deliberately, as he said in his speech, to represent separate requirements and needs.
The farming community upon which mid-Wales depends is different in every possible way from the former mining or steel communities of south and north Wales, not just in its job patterns, but in its structure. The continuing threat to what is still Wales's largest industry, agriculture, and the fortunately gradual, rather than sudden, decline in the number of jobs in that industry, require the continuing care of an organisation that is different from the WDA, an organisation that can take a more gradual approach.
If I wish to pay particular tribute to the work that has been done by the DBRW in the past two or three years, I can do so merely by pointing to the small new factories that are springing up, for example, just outside Welshpool, which has not had its full share of development. Also, more is happening west of the Newtown area which, at one time, had the concentration of development. I hope that the linkage between a better resourced WDA, as provided for by the Bill, and the DBRW will continue for a long time.
I wish to repeat a plea that I made recently in the Welsh Grand Committee, for a particular focus to be given in the future to the indigenous industries of Wales. It is wonderful for the Newport area to have the LG development, and any major incoming investment must be greeted with open arms. However, the DBRW has not always been the most popular organisation in mid-Wales, as it is said that sometimes, but not always, it gives the impression that it gives its all to outside investment coming in—particularly when a Japanese, German or Korean name is attached to it—but pays little attention to indigenous development.
That is not true, and it is not an accusation that I make. However, in my view, more can be done to develop indigenous industries within Wales. The Source Wales scheme is but an example of what can be done. But more can be achieved, particularly by focusing small-scale help on the development of new skills in Welsh factories—especially in the remoter parts of Wales.
In a recent Welsh Grand Committee debate, I made a particular plea for a part of the service industry in Newtown, in mid-Wales. The DBRW was, at the time, refusing to sell buildings to a successful business based in Newtown, called Charlie's Stores Ltd., which has grown from a street stall to a company with a turnover in excess of £10 million a year. The flexibility of Mr. Rowe-Beddoe was demonstrated to me today, when I received a letter from him informing me that an agreement had been reached to sell the premises to Charlie's Stores Ltd. Such a change in attitude towards indigenous industry will, I hope, be developed by the WDA and the DBRW.
It is often said—although I do not believe it to be the case—that the cleverest people in Wales become Members of this House, civil servants, schoolteachers, doctors and, dare I say, lawyers, but that they are bad at becoming entrepreneurs. I do not believe that to be the case at all, as there are examples of good Welsh entrepreneurs. They may not be directors of Tesco, but they are evident in other spheres.
I hope very much that the WDA—in spending whatever extra money is made available to it as a result of the Bill—will go out and look for Welsh winners for Welsh industry, to help the development of the industry of the future. We want to see a long perspective in the process. Above all, we should be looking for an evolution in Welsh industry that will lead not only to foreign companies coming into Wales, but to Welsh-grown companies—as Laura Ashley did in years gone by, and as Control Techniques from my constituency has done successfully—going to other countries and other continents to open Welsh companies. In doing so, they will show that Wales not just receives the crumbs from the rich man's table, but can be the rich man, too.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Bill has been welcomed enthusiastically on both sides of the House, and I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who piloted the original legislation through the House. We should also remember that the original Welsh Development Agency Act was passed in 1975 by a Government who believed that Governments should intervene in the economy; who believed that Governments should intervene positively to

reduce disparities—in this case regional disparities—within the United Kingdom; and who believed that Governments can make a difference.
That is an old-fashioned view and, in some ways, this is an old-fashioned Bill. It is a kind of old Labour-ish Bill, as it increases borrowing and financial limits. The Welsh Development Agency is the only agency left in Britain which can intervene economically. Scotland does not have its development agency any more—it has gone, and is now called something else. It is with some pleasure that I notice that, despite all the fashion for global markets, the ideology of small government, the jargon about partnerships and the philosophy of communautarianism, we are all here this evening extolling the virtues of central Government using taxpayers' money to intervene in the economy. Perhaps there is still hope for that somewhat tarnished, old-fashioned view.
I read in the excellent briefing paper produced at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) by the Secretary of State that there will be substantial increases in Government expenditure. There are problems, and the bottom line may not be as good as the figures I shall mention, but for 1996–97 the original figure was £40 million and the outturn—that lovely Treasury word—will be £65 million, an increase of 60 per cent. I must applaud a Government who increase public expenditure in a year by 60 per cent. The following year, the figure is up to £84.7 million, a further increase of 30 per cent. We can congratulate the Government on that at least. In a world of low taxation and balanced budgets, the increase is refreshing.
Despite its ups and downs, the WDA has made a difference. No institution is perfect, and every organisation has its problems occasionally. Sadly, despite the difference it has made, Wales is now the poorest region in Britain. Wales has the lowest gross domestic product per head of population. The other day, I was reading the budget put out by the Welsh Office. It is difficult to have regional budgets in a centralised economy and state such as Britain. It tells a horrendous story. It tells of a massive difference between the money that is raised in Wales through taxation and the money that Wales receives—properly—by way of public expenditure.
The difference can be illustrated by considering the financial deficit figure, or borrowing requirement. The budget is now two or three years old, but as of today the Welsh financial deficit in the United Kingdom economy is about 15 per cent. The budget mentions 20 per cent., but that is the figure from two years ago. Despite the difference made by the WDA, the Welsh economy still has a financial deficit of about 15 per cent. France and Germany are having trouble reducing their deficits from 4 per cent. to 3 per cent. to meet the Maastricht treaty conditions. The scale of a 15 per cent. deficit demonstrates the still sad state of the Welsh economy after 18 years of Conservative government.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point that, in the quest for major inward investment in manufacturing industry, the WDA and the Welsh Office have, in the past 17 years, neglected an area that I describe as industrial west Wales. Industrial west Wales extends from the west of Bridgend to the western end of my constituency of Llanelli. I may be being slightly churlish because, as the Minister may point out if he has time when he winds up, Llanelli has received large sums from the


WDA for land reclamation, environmental works and the regeneration of its town centre. I accept that and I welcome it. Those projects have improved the environment and generated some, but not much, economic activity. However, the money has not created the sort of wealth that is required. In industrial west Wales and in Llanelli, we still have a problem of high unemployment, especially among young people, low activity rates and low income per head.
About 30 per cent. of those who are employed in my constituency still work in production, mainly manufacturing and engineering. That figure is probably somewhat higher than the average for industrial west Wales. We have some excellent companies, as do other nearby constituencies. Many of the companies are car component firms. We have five or six that can, and do, compete with the best in the world; the same is true of some of the factories in my hon. Friends' constituencies in industrial west Wales. The area needs major inward investment in manufacturing engineering, as it is now described. Because of the car component plants, I believe that the area could now support a major car assembly plant.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the emphasis may change, but I hope that the guidelines permeate down to the WDA in Swansea and the so-called Swansea bay partnership. A deliberate decision has been made in the past not to go for inward investment, but to support and nurture existing industry. That is fine, and I do not decry it, but we miss out on major inward investment.
Some time ago, the Mercedes car company announced that it was to build a small car, the Swatch, outside Germany. It is to be built just on the French side of the Franco-German border. At the time of the announcement, I tried to discover how a constituency such as Llanelli could attract that investment. I found it difficult to penetrate the bureaucracies, especially that of the WDA, to find out what was going on. I was told that Mercedes had employed a firm of management consultants in Boston and that nobody except Government agencies was allowed to talk to it.
Finally, I was able to obtain—unofficially—a list of Mercedes' seven requirements. My constituency fitted all of them, as did those of my hon. Friends in industrial west Wales. There was not one requirement that we could not have fulfilled. One of the main requirements was for clean air and for the site not to be too close to factories that pollute the air. That would be possible in Llanelli.
The problem was not one of resources. We are close enough to major highways, ports and an airport to satisfy all the requirements. I pointed that out to various people and was told that Mercedes was interested only in the north-east of England. I never got that in writing, and I do not know who made the decision. I was never told that by Mercedes. I suspect that the decision was made by the Department of Trade and Industry— I suspect that it was the Invest in Britain Bureau. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is not here, but he set that bureau up in 1974. It has become the "Invest in England" bureau. I do not decry that. England has to have that sort of investment arm, serviced by the Department of Trade and Industry, but I suspect that all

this nonsense about Mercedes not being prepared to go anywhere in Britain but the north-east of England came from that bureau.

Mr. Roy Hughes: My right hon. Friend must appreciate that this is merely a case of history repeating itself. Lord Walker's autobiography—as Peter Walker, he was Secretary of State for Wales—clearly states that the Toyota motor company was to build its manufacturing plant in Newport. As a result of the intervention of the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, it was sent to more marginal political territory in Derby.

Mr. Davies: Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not had the pleasure of reading Lord Walker's autobiography. Perhaps one of these days I shall. I do not know, but I suspect that the Invest in Britain Bureau exists to attract industry to England, and we must be sure that we get our fair share.
There should be a change in policy for industrial west Wales. We are ready for a major car assembly plant. Such plants do not grow on trees. I understand the problems, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon said, preparatory work has to be done for many years. That work has to start now, and it is to be hoped that it will bear fruit in a few years.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) described this as an old-fashioned Bill. Indeed it is, and thank God for it.
Not only is this an old-fashioned Bill, but the agency ought to be fulfilling a couple of old-fashioned functions. It is worth reminding ourselves what its early functions, both of which it inherited, were. The first was industrial estate development; the second was the derelict land reclamation programme. The first function had previously been conducted by the estates corporations; the second by the Welsh Office, particularly after the Aberfan disaster.
The first function was nothing new. Indeed, in some ways the agency continues a great tradition. In the early days, the Government discovered that investment was necessary to deal with the problems of large-scale unemployment in particular areas. The first industrial estate in Wales was a result of the first U-turn by the then National Conservative Government of 1935. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Chamberlain, who had raised to a fine art the principle of non-intervention—to the point that they tried to transfer large populations out of our communities—were driven by the threat of an election in 1935 to announce that they were willing to finance the Treforest industrial estate. It was the instrument by which the first major inward investors came into Wales. It is interesting that, of the 70-odd companies that came to Wales in the late 1930s, 49 were a result of Jewish immigration from central and eastern Europe. They were the first inward investors into the south Wales economy as we know it today.
I draw attention to the history of industrial development because, after the war, Government power and the investment of Government money brought small industrial developments into mining communities and mining villages, which created new manufacturing opportunities where only the coal and iron industries had


offered employment. The development of those small industrial estates and groups of factories helped us to diversify, and created the post-war south Wales economy.
One of the worrying aspects of the drift in the Welsh Development Agency budget is the way in which smaller industrial estates are being sacrificed for large inward investments. I must plead with Ministers, and especially with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) when he assumes ministerial responsibility in the coming months, for the traditional role of the WDA in developing small industrial estates in communities that cannot attract or physically fit the large inward investment developments that we have seen in recent years. Those small developments should be just as much of a priority. They should be part of any WDA strategy or budget.
I was at the meeting of the heads of the valleys standing conference last Monday, when the Secretary of State was presented with a list of the smaller industrial estate developments that could take place, but which seem to have been put on stop because of the WDA's budgetary problems.
The second function that the Welsh Development Agency inherited was land reclamation. The agency assumed what had previously been the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office. Indeed, had it not been for the Welsh Office decision to clear the land at Pentrebach in 1975, there would not have been a site to attract the first Korean inward investment that was announced only a few months ago.
The Halla Engineering scheme was brought to a site that was cleared under a land reclamation programme as early as 1976–77. That programme has played an enormous and vital part in the regeneration of our mining communities. The Secretary of State told us that the amount of land reclaimed could have filled X thousand football pitches; ironically, in many cases—certainly in my community—it is football pitches that people want to develop in the reclamation programmes, to create a balanced recreational facility in a community in which tips and waste once lay.
There is great bitterness in communities such as Treharris, Trelewis and Bedlinog that have watched the vandalism of the accelerated pit closure programme. They were left with all the problems, and now we are told that the WDA does not have the money to, develop those sites and clear the waste land, offering new opportunities and a new environment to the villages. The Minister came and saw for himself, and he will have understood and appreciated the strength of feeling about the delays—indeed, the stop—to land reclamation programmes as a result of the WDA's current budgetary problems.
The Secretary of State kept on referring to the targets that he intends to set. Some are like Soviet grain targets; a figure that has been plucked out and which it is assumed will be reached. There was a specific target that we took seriously: that for land reclamation by 2000. That objective was set by Welsh Office Ministers and should be met, but on present budgetary plans, and certainly on present WDA performance, it will not be.
We are all, understandably, fighting over funds for millennium projects of one kind or another. That target was something to aim at for the millennium, but unless there is a significant change of heart and improvement in the WDA's land reclamation budget, it will not be met.
My strong plea is not necessarily made to my hon. Friends the incoming Ministers, because I hope that in the last few weeks of this Administration we can have an announcement of some unlocking of money to restart some of our land reclamation schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly knows all too well that there are constituency as well as national problems, and I hope that he, too, will regard restarting the programmes as a major priority, to remove the embittered feeling in many of our communities caused by the fact that lots of development is being carried out not too far away, while the much-needed and well-deserved changes that people expected in their immediate environment are not happening.
That brings me to a third function that the WDA, with its added financial capacity, should take up the challenge of assuming. In many of our small mining communities, alongside the bigger developments such as LG in Newport, Halla Engineering or the significant developments along the heads of the valleys road, there is a growing dereliction. Shops and houses that cannot be sold have been boarded up. The image of dereliction in many small mining villages is in sharp contrast to the glitzy sex appeal of international inward investment.

Mr. Allan Rogers: And Cardiff bay.

Mr. Rowlands: As my hon. Friend says, that also applies to Cardiff bay. We spent many months making that case.
Along with chasing great international inward investments, and the excitement and adrenaline that doubtless runs in the veins of those who go in search of it, let us have some energy, innovation and imagination put in to support community enterprise and local regeneration. We need to ensure that the planning is right.
The closure of sub-post offices and chemists is the deadly sign of the loss of community in our mining villages. With it comes the boarding up of properties. Let us have local joint ventures of the sort that we have seen on the grander scale; let us have assisted development of the sort from which Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has benefited in recent years. Alongside the bigger, wider programme, let us have community enterprise development and an agency that can combine with local authorities and the Welsh Office to regenerate our communities at local level.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the LG investment in Newport is not negative from the point of view of the valleys? I come from the valleys, but I have found that people from there flock in their hundreds and thousands to work in Newport and Cardiff. That will happen again.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that I have not suggested that I in any way oppose LG. The opposite is true. I am not so parochial that I do not realise the major role that LG will play in employment opportunities throughout the communities that surround the site near Newport, but let us also have some imagination and effort put into community development through joint venture schemes. The WDA has undertaken big, urban, commercial renewals, but it has not carried the same principles, efforts, energy and imagination down into our local communities. The partnerships and joint venture schemes that exist at one level should be delivered at another.
I have pleaded for more public money. I will be accused by the Government, and perhaps by my Front Bench, of breaking the Government-Brown diktats on public expenditure. We are talking about small sums of money. The Secretary of State was suddenly able to find £25 million to increase the WDA's budget. I did not notice taxes go up or public borrowing explode as a result. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, in the Welsh Office's £6.8 billion budget, we cannot find an additional £25 million. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly to go through the budget after the general election and find such a sum.
A Welsh Office budget of £6.7 billion was forecast for 1995–96, yet the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), forecast a budget of £6.890 billion—£190 million more. Such changes between forecasts and outturn must be noted. The right hon. Member for Wokingham, whom I never took to be a great lover of public expenditure, forecast a budget for the Welsh Office for 1996–97 of £7 billion. That was his forecast.
Given the large sums of money involved, the planning, the outturns and estimates, all we are saying is that an extra £25 million should be found on top of the current planned expenditure to unlock the WDA's land reclamation budget and restore some of the financing that is necessary for it to carry out the core functions for which it has been responsible since its creation.

Mr. Barry Jones: This debate has latched on to the central issues as they affect our country, Wales. I thought that the Secretary of State made an emollient and typically courteous speech. I thought that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State gave the speech of a man savouring the prospect of office within weeks.
Two essential points have been made in the debate. First, right hon. and hon. Members very much hope to see more investment from indigenous companies, notwithstanding their welcome for overseas investment. Secondly, we would like to emphasise our wish that the WDA should offer even-handed treatment across Wales. Right hon. and hon. Members have expressed some anxiety that that may not be happening. I do not wish to be controversial, but that is an important point to bear in mind in the years ahead.
Hon. Members have tried to emphasise the context in which the WDA is being debated. There is a historical context that can be understood by consideration of Ben Pimlott's biography of Hugh Dalton and the autobiography of the late Douglas Jay. Those books offer a history of the germ of regional policy. They reveal how those two great figures of the Labour movement, who worked as civil servants in the second world war, were responsible for the first conscious acts to prepare regional policy. From memory, I believe that Douglas Jay recounts how he encouraged, with the help of some Welshmen, the development of the first planned industrial estate, which was located in Bridgend. It was followed by others in central Scotland.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The first was Nylon Spinners.

Mr. Jones: Yes, my hon. Friend is right.
I see this debate as an anniversary of the debate on the creation of the WDA. I should like to emphasise the major role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) played in its creation. I remember the day when he opened the Second Reading of the Bill in which the agency was proposed to this honourable House. I had the honour of winding up for the Government. I recollect how the then Nicholas Edwards, who represented Her Majesty's Opposition, gave an unwelcoming, carping and grudging response to Labour Ministers' proposals in the middle of the 1970s. At the conclusion of the debate, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) wound up for the Opposition and he, too, offered the same regretful, unwelcoming and carping response to my right hon. and learned Friend's creation of the WDA. That approach continued in the Standing Committee, in which I piloted the Bill alongside my late colleague, Alec Jones.
I also remember from that Second Reading that Peter Walker, now Lord Walker, made a grudging intervention in which he claimed the credit that he seemed to think he should be given for the idea of the WDA.
Nicholas Edwards, who later became Secretary of State and who is now in another place, would not have been able to survive as a Cabinet Minister without the instruments of economic power that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon had bequeathed him. There was a time, in the early 1980s, when unemployment in Wales according to the official figures exceeded 180,000—indeed, the number of unemployed people in Wales edged close to 200,000. Having said that, under successive Secretaries of State, the agency has been a great success. It had to be, because, in the early 1980s, there were major disasters in manufacturing industry in Wales, not least the colossal losses in man-made fibre jobs, brickmaking jobs and steelmaking jobs, as at Shotton steelworks in my constituency. In this debate, however, we must acknowledge the agency's successes throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
I have an agenda concerning my own constituency that I want to put to the Secretary of State. I shall first mention townships such as Connah's Quay, Shotton, Queensferry, and Buckley: to some extent, the agency has invested in Deeside and in those communities, but it is the wish of Flintshire county council and of my constituents that there be more investment. I give as an example the township of Queensferry where many of the shop fronts are now boarded up and are not operating in the interests of the citizens of that locality. To some extent, the same may be said of the township of Shotton. We have suffered considerably from man-made fibre plant closures, from steelmaking job losses and from cyclical redundancies in the aerospace industry, in addition to redundancies in the cement industry and in brickmaking. In all this, we have instanced the need for the agency to back us fully and to give us every possible help.
Mention has been made of Mr. Rowe-Beddoe and his chairmanship of the agency. Through my observation of the agency's leadership over many years, I know that he has been a success of a particular kind. His discipline over his executives and employees is severe—some of his detractors say that he is something of an Attila the Hun, but if he is and if he has made the agency more leak-proof and disciplined, so be it. In all my remarks, my hope has been to see the agency as being the means and the instrument by which my constituency might suffer less unemployment.
The agency has made the Deeside industrial park one of the finest in western Europe. Nevertheless, there are some requirements: we want the industrial park to be given a railway station of its own on the Wrexham-Birkenhead line and I would ask the Government to consider how that objective might be achieved. Likewise, there is a disused railway line from the industrial park to the city of Chester and it is our wish that the line might become a dedicated road, which would help to lessen traffic jams and the consequent pollution on Deeside. The agency may be of help to us in bringing that scheme to fruition. I very much hope that Ministers will respond positively on those two points.
Bearing in mind the pressures on time, and bearing in mind the fact that I had the chance to catch your eye last week, Madam Speaker, I resume my seat.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We are having this debate on the Welsh Development Agency in the last few weeks of this Parliament. Opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that he at last recognised that various distortions had arisen in Wales that had not been corrected and that he proposed to tilt the agency's balance of policy more in the direction of west Wales and north-west Wales, which have not so far benefited. The difficulty is that it is the end of the Parliament so, when we urge the facts, which do need remedy, really we are preaching to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and urging him to take up that challenge, because we will be unable to see the fruit of the apparent and intended change of policy.
There has been a marked degree of consensus about the value of the agency's role. My city, Swansea, has benefited substantially from joint ventures with the agency, especially in Swansea vale and Castle quays, but the record on inward investment is not good on the whole. For example, there has been no major investment in Swansea bay or in the area that includes Llanelli during the existence of the Welsh Development Agency.
There is an increasing perception in political and business circles in south-west Wales that the agency—and the Welsh Office, which presides over it—are countenancing a widening gap between the economic performance of south-east and south-west Wales. Yes, the division of the agency's responsibilities into three regions is important, but Bridgend is included in the south-west Wales region, and that masks the problems that have showed themselves further west, so a misleading impression is given of the performance west of Bridgend.
I hope that what the Secretary of State said will be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, but much damage has been done in the past, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) showed clearly, by what the Government may call working with the grain, which in effect negates the key aim of regional policy to reduce internal imbalances as well as imbalances between England and Wales.
There have been specific examples of diversion of investment projects from west Wales to Cardiff bay, such as one from Baglan, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon. Much damage was done by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in reducing the grant in aid

for the agency to £25 million at a time when the Cardiff Bay development corporation was receiving slightly more than twice that amount in grant in aid. I understand the concept of making a flagship of the capital city, but it is now generally recognised in Wales that the Government have gone too far in that direction to the detriment of balanced development throughout Wales.
The West Wales chamber of commerce has sent a questionnaire to its members, the results of which are to be returned today, on precisely that theme. As the Secretary of State should know, there has been considerable disquiet in south-west Wales on that subject. Yes, we all rejoice that LG has gone to Newport, but there is now a major site, for which planning procedures are almost completed, at Velindre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). That would have a major impact on the economy of south-west Wales, and it is there that the present Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, his successor, should exert their energies to try to get a major investment at Velindre to match that at LG in Newport.
We need greater commitment and positive action to reduce the growing divide between east and west Wales. Given what the Secretary of State has said today, I concede that I may be pushing at a door that has opened, but that will never stop a politician pressing harder and harder. I hope that the lesson will be learnt. The facts of the current disparities are clear, and have been clear for a long time. At last, this Secretary of State seems to have recognised those disparities. I look forward to his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, making a positive commitment to ending the disparities that have grown so alarmingly in the past years.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The debate has ranged far and wide, although it is about the financial limits of the Welsh Development Agency. Those limits are relevant to the WDA's activities and how quickly it exhausts the limits previously set. The key question that has emerged from this wide-ranging debate—this seemed to scandalise Welsh Office Ministers and former Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—is whether it is right for us to accuse the Conservative Government, who are now reaching their fag end, of having an ambivalent attitude towards the WDA, even since its inception in 1975. Although they have found the agency convenient from time to time, they have caused it to exist on a diet of feast and famine, so that it has never known quite where it stood with the Government.
The right hon. Member for Conwy accused my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of a travesty of the truth in making that accusation against the Government. This matter is at the heart of the debate. The Secretary of State—unintentionally, I am sure—misled the House when he said that the amount that the WDA will receive next year in accordance with the financial limit set by the Bill will be greater in real terms than the amount that it received 10 years ago. He is right if one uses that comparison, but one can always pick out a year here and a year there to substantiate any claim. We should use the average figures for central Government financing of the WDA.
For the first 10 years of the WDA—from 1976 to 1985, half of which was under Labour, and just over half under the Conservatives—the amount of grant in aid and the


other relevant finance for the purposes of the Bill averaged £90 million a year. For each of the next 10 years—from 1986 to 1995, all of which were under the Conservatives—the amount was lower, but it was still fairly healthy at an average of £60 million a year. That is at today's prices.
Then along came the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and all of a sudden, instead of £90 million a year on average for the first decade and £60 million a year on average for the second decade, the relevant figure—the amount of additional finance that the WDA received—suddenly dropped to £13 million, which was the second lowest figure in the history of the WDA in cash terms, let alone in real terms. That was the amount that the right hon. Member for Wokingham gave it in 1995–96, which was his first year as Secretary of State. Only in its first year, when it received £9 million—it was a new body and had not had time to set up its machinery—did the agency receive less grant in aid or have less borrowing power.
Then we had the first year of the present Secretary of State. Until the change in the budget last November, he was going to give the WDA only £17 million, which would have been the second lowest amount. That figure has shot up to £42 million, because of the extra £25 million that was supplied halfway through this financial year. The figure now looks respectable, but the Secretary of State's original intention was that it should be only £17 million. In those two successive years, the figures were £13 million, given by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, and £17 million, given by the present Secretary of State. That is a true measure.
The Secretary of State has now learnt his lesson, and has realised that being Secretary of State for Wales with the WDA at his disposal can bring him kudos. When he realised last summer that LG had signed on the dotted line, he thought, "I might become a bit higher profile as Secretary of State for Wales. I can become a slightly more important person and rise up the pecking order of the present Cabinet, and even more so of the future shadow Cabinet, if I am seen as the man who helped to bring LG to Wales."
All of a sudden, instead of the WDA being on a famine diet of only £17 million—the second lowest budget, barring its first year and the previous year under the right hon. Member for Wokingham—the Secretary of State decides to give it more money. Suddenly it is feast time again, at least to a moderate degree, and the amount of relevant finance is £42 million, which is still well below the average of the previous decade, but it is respectable. It looks as though the amount will go up to £65 million next year under the terms of the Bill, so the WDA will get a sum which is about the average of the past 10 years. That will be the time when the LG industrial development must be financed.
All that makes one wonder whether our charge that the Government are ambivalent about the WDA—making it exist on a diet of feast or famine—is not the bullseye. They have always had a problem with the WDA. That was apparent in the case of the Scottish Development Agency when it first started. The Government still do not know how they want to give the WDA the operational freedom to bring in large new inward investment and to

use those big investments from outside to stimulate indigenous business in Wales to act as suppliers to the new industries.
Everyone now agrees about the farcical period of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, nominally the Secretary of State for Wales, but in practice the Secretary of State for Wokingham and the Tory right-wing think tanks. He was the one who crippled the WDA's operational abilities by causing it to privatise itself from the inside by selling all its major assets, which meant that it then did not have the monthly cash flow, and every time a large investor came in, the WDA had to go back to the Welsh Office for special finance. Luckily, in the case of LG, it did so successfully.
There was an American fifth cavalry charge coming over the top of the hill in November last year with an extra £25 million, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred. We warmly welcomed that, but it should have been a lesson to the Secretary of State that he should not continue in the tradition of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who disgraced himself so much in his period as Secretary of State for Wales, through his attitude to the WDA, single mothers and many other issues.
The structure of the Bill is noteworthy. It will be the last measure of its kind. Henceforth, any increase in borrowing powers will be made by secondary legislation—by order. It is an unprecedented measure in the extent of its delegation to secondary legislation. It is what is known as a Henry VIII power: there is no limit on the ability by secondary legislation—

Mr. Hague: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State seems to be shaking his head. Let me read from a note that I received from one of the Clerks of the House. He states:
What is unusual about the WDA Bill, and, as far as we can discover, unprecedented, is not to impose any ceiling at all on the amount to which a limit may be raised by order. I say that cautiously because it is never easy to prove a negative.

Mr. Hague: I was shaking my head because the Bill requires affirmative resolution to raise the limit in future. That is by no means what anyone would understand as a Henry VIII power.

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State seems not to understand that a power has never been given by statutory instrument before, with no capping limit on it. That has never been done before. That is the view of a senior Clerk of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has a different view. We know that he was something of a wunderkind 20 years ago, and had hardly sprung from the womb when he made his famous speech in the very year that the WDA was founded. We all remember that. Perhaps the Secretary of State still thinks that he is a wunderkind and knows more about such matters than the Clerks of the House. There will be others who do not agree with him about that, but we shall have to see who is right. There is no precedent for extending the secondary legislative power in this way—the Secretary of State may be proud of that and he may think that he is Henry VIII. I am not sure, but the Clerks of the House clearly believe that the procedure is unprecedented.
It is odd that the power, as it related to the Scottish Development Agency, was passed through secondary legislation in 1990, but the next measure extending the financial limits of that agency's successor body will have to go through primary legislation because it has exhausted its secondary legislative powers. That reveals the confusion at the heart of the Government's attitude towards the Scottish Development Agency and its successor bodies and the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Rowlands: From the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying, am I to understand that he will support our amendment to remove that provision?

Mr. Morgan: I have not seen any such amendment. Has an amendment been tabled? The issue will no doubt be raised in Committee and we can see whether the Government are right. Given our proposals for a Welsh Assembly, what the Government have done is highly convenient. It would allow the democratic control, which the Government now seem anxious to take away from the Floor of the House. If there were a Welsh Assembly, I would support the Government's move. It represents an important development if the Government are trying to give us favours in terms of our future proposals for a Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State for Health was also helpful on that front today when he introduced more confusion.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the power were to be transferred to the proposed Welsh Assembly, there would be no limit on the assembly's power to increase the amount, as specified in the Bill?

Mr. Morgan: It does not cause additional expenditure; it permits it—as the Secretary of State's briefing note rightly said. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Conwy, as a former Minister, would agree with that. It is a question of the loss of parliamentary control. We keep hearing about the West Lothian question, but the Government are happy to get their Members to vote for a loss of parliamentary control—I think that that was the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. There is not the same degree of parliamentary control simply because the measure cannot be amended. That is at the crux of the matter—that is why measures are being transferred to secondary legislation.
The Secretary of State is asking the House to approve the removal of the right to amend a measure by passing it over to secondary legislation, with no ultimate capping limit—that is unprecedented. The Secretary of State should have explained why he was doing that. His only explanation is that he did not realise that he was doing it. Obviously, he has not received the same briefing as I did from the Clerks of the House.
The issues involving the WDA concern all of us who represent Welsh constituencies. How do we get the balance right between east and west, between inward investors and indigenous firms? How do we ensure that when, for the first time in 20 years, the WDA hits a big inward investor such as LG, that does not absorb all its finances so that it is unable to capitalise on firms that could become suppliers? Those firms could be indigenous or they could have moved into the area. They may be on a smaller scale and it may be appropriate for them to set

up in places that do not attract large numbers of commuters such as we have in south-east Wales and the Swansea area. Getting the balance right between east and west, between large and small, and between inward investors and indigenous investors is what lies at the heart of the topics raised by hon. Members today.
We have heard many comments from those who are concerned that, because the Government cannot give a sustainable commitment to fund the WDA for a two, three or four-year period and keep failing in their primary duty to provide a framework for the agency's financing, the agency does not know where it is. If the LG development proceeds in Wales, will it exhaust the agency's financial capabilities to sustain supplier industries that might be able to feed off LG, and thereby prevent building up a much stronger indigenous sector?
The final measure of whether the WDA is a success and of whether Welsh Office Ministers have looked after the WDA—although their predecessors opposed its creation—is the state of the Welsh economy. People have said that the Welsh economy is a brilliant success, because one or two big names have moved in. LG is the first mega-development for 20 years, but—for the purposes of those of us representing Welsh constituencies—the state of the Welsh economy is not explained by listing the big names and saying that LG is a great success or that JCB's expansion in north Wales is a great success. There are other great successes—such as Ocean Technical Glass moving to Cardiff, Newport Waferfad, and Halla moving into Merthyr—but the bottom line is the state of the Welsh economy.
While the gross domestic product per head in Wales remains 16 per cent. below that of the United Kingdom, it will remain true that Wales will continue to require an interventionist economic agency. The Government have never been able to make up their minds about the WDA; they remain ambivalent about it; and they would much prefer to close it down completely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It has been very good to have such a good-natured debate on the Bill—until the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). However, I readily agree with his conjecture that one can always find a couple of figures to try to support the argument that one is inventing, because he proceeded to do precisely that in his 15 minutes. I offer him my sympathy because, judging by Opposition Members' interventions, I suspect that he will have trouble from Labour Back Benchers in Committee.

Mr. Morgan: What was I inventing? Will the Minister quote it, chapter and verse, or withdraw his comment?

Mr. Jones: I think that Hansard will demonstrate that very clearly tomorrow morning. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read it, to see whether he can repeat the statements a second time. However, he does not need to worry, because I have great confidence that he will not have to worry about the Welsh affairs portfolio for much longer.
This was a good-natured debate, and why not? It was about the success story of the way in which we have nurtured and developed the Welsh Development Agency.
It was good to hear speeches from the more senior Labour Members—if I may so call them—as they are those rare commodities on Opposition Benches: hon. Members with ministerial experience. It was good to hear from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and from the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
It was especially good to hear from the two "originators"—those who took part in the original debate on setting up the WDA, my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). My right hon. Friend very effectively nailed the claims made by Opposition Members about the way in which he and successive Secretaries of State have maintained the WDA.
I am a little surprised at the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon. Initially we knew what he wanted to say, but I always thought that he never made a more pertinent observation than, "You cannot ignore an elephant when you find it on your doorstep," which was a reference to the result of the 1979 referendum on a Welsh Assembly. He attempted to recreate the first fumbling footsteps of the child who has now been honed into the superb contributor to team Wales, which he so ably captains. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very knowing warnings about his party going back to the old, failed policies of the past. It is very likely that the phrase in his mind will be, "It will all end in tears"—which harks back to 1979.
This debate is about a success story—about how we have used the WDA as a key part of team Wales. We are determined to make the agency even more successful in the next Parliament. I feel that that objective is very much in line with the detailed analysis presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). He was absolutely right to stress the necessity of confidence in the Welsh economy. I was glad to have his welcome and that of the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement earlier tonight, on what we want the WDA to do, in being even more ambitious outside the eastern corridors of the A55 in north Wales and the M4 in the south.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) welcomed the same announcement, although he spoilt his welcome by claiming that nothing was being done and that we did not understand the necessity of doing something. He did not listen to what my right hon. Friend said. Immediately before making that point, he reminded the House that the WDA already had a target of creating 20 per cent. of its jobs outside those two corridors. Already this year, the agency has done better than that and reached a target of 32 per cent. If we do not have any understanding of the desirability of doing even more in that area, why are we setting targets to improve and extend the existing aims? Of course, the criticism comes from the hon. Gentleman who would give us lessons in civility.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Swansea, East were understandably concerned about what the agency had already done to the west of the corridor in the south. I remind them that, since 1983, the agency has been involved in 111 inward

investment projects in west Wales, which have created or safeguarded more than 12,000 jobs. It has entered into numerous joint venture agreements with local authorities and the private sector to achieve significant regeneration in the west.
Two fine examples of the agency working with local authorities and the private sector are Swansea vale, where the joint venture aims to attract 3,500 jobs and about £160 million of direct private sector investment, and Llanelli, where construction work has begun on the town centre shopping complex, which will provide 130,000 sq ft of much-needed new retail space. I am glad that the hon. Member for Swansea, East acknowledged that the agency has recently completed demolition and clearance work on the 200-acre former steelworks site at Felindre. That is a key strategic inward investment site, and the next stage will be the reclamation and infrastructure works.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly appeared to criticise the suspension of Standing Order No. 56. I want, through him, to—

Mr. Ron Davies: No. 86.

Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It went through on the nod on Friday afternoon, and I thought that I needed, through him, to thank the Opposition for their ready agreement to proceed in that way. He peculiarly claimed that this form of legislation meant that a Welsh Assembly would be the perfect body to scrutinise it. Surely, it is a very backhanded compliment to Opposition Members to suggest that their ineffectiveness can be overcome only by a toothless talking shop filled by those who failed to enter this House. What does that say about Labour Back Benchers?
The hon. Member for Caerphilly could not answer when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understandably asked whether he would give the agency extra funds. The hon. Gentleman went on at length and identified what he called a £30 million shortfall, but could not follow through the logic of his own argument, a point not lost on his hon. Friends, most obviously the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
My right hon. Friend has already confirmed that the agency still has a significant land reclamation programme in its proposals for its next business plan. It has almost 3,500 acres in the process of being reclaimed and, on current plans, some 1,850 acres will be completed in the next two years. Some concern has been expressed about projects that have been delayed, but this year the agency has already responded to some of that concern. It has increased its budget by 25 per cent., to £17.5 million, which will allow the next phases of various projects to proceed. It has been necessary to review plans and commitments, but contractual commitments are being honoured.
Support for some projects is being deferred, but none will be lost. My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing the agency's business plan with its board. He will be keen to ensure that its commitment to the 1,850 acres will be retained, although the individual projects that total it are wholly a matter for the agency.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said about Trelewis. I was grateful for the invitation to visit it with him in September.


I understand the depth of local feeling even better as a result of that visit. As I have already assured him, I have placed the issue before the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me a brief intervention. Does the target of clearing all derelict land by 2000 still stand?

Mr. Jones: I believe that the agency is confident of proceeding towards the target that it has set for land reclamation. The exact phasing and completion remain to be achieved, but I have confidence about the agency's progress.
Concern has also been expressed about progress at Coed Ely. I understand that the delay in that land reclamation scheme is not solely financial, but is primarily because of problems with the contractors and the complex nature of the project. The agency will do what it can to take the project forward as soon as possible.
In the strategic guidance for the current financial year, we have clearly set out our policies for the agency, for it to continue concentrating on the creation and safeguarding of jobs through inward investment and company development. We also attach priority to land reclamation. I fully support the emphasis that continues to be given to those programmes for the coming year, which are fundamental to the continuing success of the Welsh economy. We have also set the agency a number of key strategic targets. I am pleased that it met most of its targets in 1995–96 and even exceeded some of them. I look forward to another excellent set of results in 1996–97.
The agency's aim is to
help create a successful and dynamic economy—promoting the best business climate in Europe by assisting the growth of quality jobs and competitive industry for the benefit of people throughout Wales.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, in line with that, the agency's programme over the next few years will focus on all parts of Wales, promoting indigenous business growth throughout Wales and creating the right climate for all the growing firms.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy, I noticed the article in The Western Mail this morning. I felt that it was a travesty until I heard my right hon. Friend suggest that there might be another hand in its authorship—perhaps that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Is an article entitled "Why the WDA needs to be reformed" what we should expect from someone who sincerely hopes to be representing Wales in the Cabinet by May? He refers to our failing economy, calling it stagnant at best and a disgrace at worst. He tries in every way to present Wales in the worst possible light, blithely ignoring the reality. Since the general election four years

ago, unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than 30 per cent.—a drop of 40,700, to the current figure of 93,000. At the same time, employment is rising.
Going back a little further, we see that, over the past 10 years, manufacturing has increased by 7.1 per cent. In the rest of the United Kingdom, it has, I am afraid to say, fallen by 26 per cent. Over the same 10-year period, construction has increased by 10 per cent. in Wales—more than three times better than the figures for Britain as a whole.

Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I am sorry, but I do not have the time to give way any more.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly ignores LG and the realities of its inward investment to the Cardiff and Newport area. In his blithe ignorance of what is going on, he does a cruel injustice to Wales. What of everybody who is working so hard in team Wales? They are faced with his alternative of wanting to centralise. He did not make it clear what he would do, but there were references again to the super-quango, bringing together the DBRW, the industry department, the Land Authority for Wales and the local enterprise agencies. The hon. Gentleman is an anti-devolutionist at heart. He would centralise and create a lumbering carthorse again, taking the WDA further back than it was when the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon set it up.
There is another Welshman who had the right words to describe the Opposition Front Bench—the former right hon. Member for Islwyn, Mr. Kinnock. His comment is the comment of all of us: Wales deserves better than the Labour party.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welsh Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament or out of the National Loans Fund or charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable into either of those Funds,

which is attributable to provisions of the Act increasing to £1,350 million, with power to increase further by order, the limit in section 18(3) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
Question agreed to.

Multiple Sclerosis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me a second opportunity to raise an issue that is of great importance to all who are interested in the treatment of multiple sclerosis—those who suffer from it, and those who do not.
I want to highlight two main issues. First, there is great inequality throughout the United Kingdom in access to treatment; secondly, there is a lack of understanding of the special needs of those with the disease among some NHS purchasers and providers. Many of the surrounding questions were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in his debate on neurological disorders on 29 January.
For too long, multiple sclerosis has been regarded as a Cinderella condition. The disease was first identified in the 1860s—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

Mr. Prentice: I did not fully understand that procedure, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Let me inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that it was not quite 10 pm when the debate began, and the motion for the Adjournment therefore had to be moved again at 10 pm. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.

Mr. Prentice: I know exactly where I left off, Madam Speaker.
The disease was first identified in the 1860s by a French doctor. Until recently, it was regarded as untreatable, and no thought was given to how those suffering from it could be helped, advised and supported as its course progressed. I say "progressed", for, although the disease is at present incurable, many people are affected only marginally, if at all.
A quarter of those diagnosed as having MS are affected only mildly 15 years after the onset of the disease—they may have pins and needles in their fingers or toes—while a further quarter, tragically, end up in wheelchairs. The remaining 50 per cent. have the varied symptoms that characterise MS, which can include impaired co-ordination, problems with vision, loss of sensation and fatigue. One recently diagnosed constituent of mine told me that her arm sometimes felt as if it were full of molten metal. One in 15 people with MS will eventually become severely disabled.
MS typically affects more women than men, in the ratio 3:2, and strikes the young. That is what interested me in the condition in the first place. It hits people in the prime of life, often between the ages of 20 and 40. They have everything to look forward to; then comes the diagnosis that can change everything.
MS is common—it affects roughly one in every 1,000 people—but what causes it is still a mystery. No one knows why there are MS "clusters" in certain parts of the

country, or why it increases according to latitude. It affects 99 people in every 100,000 in the south of England, but 178 per 100,000 in north-east Scotland. It used to be thought of as a disease that affected only Caucasians—and, curiously, non-white people who have settled here do not increase their chance of getting it, but their children acquire the risk faced by the general population. Many aspects of the disease are observed, but not understood.
Nevertheless, all is not gloom and despair. Things changed dramatically recently with the advent of new drugs that, it was claimed, would alter the course of the disease for those with relapsing-remitting MS, in which a person is free of the symptoms for a while but they often return with a vengeance. Peter Cardy, chief executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, wrote only a few months ago, in an article published in The House Magazine:
For those who suffer severe relapses, the experience is like being dragged repeatedly to the jaws of death; blind, in pain and paralysed.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the prospect of a drug that would deal with those dreadful symptoms has excited such interest.
Beta interferon helps people with remitting and relapsing MS—about 45 per cent. of the total number. The drug was given a product licence in December 1995, allowing it to be used not just in the UK, but throughout the European Union. In November 1995, the Department of Health issued guidelines on how it should be prescribed. I have read those guidelines cover to cover, and they put the frighteners on purchasers and on the consultant neurologist to whom would fall the clinical decision of whether beta interferon should be prescribed. The result of all that has been an enormous difference throughout the UK in the drug's availability.
The NHS guidance did not state categorically that all patients judged likely to benefit from the drug must receive it; the advice was much more circumspect. Providers—hospitals and so on—were asked to think about the resource implications of using beta interferon. It is expensive—£10,000 per patient per year—but we must set that against the annual cost to the economy of MS, which is about £1.2 billion in terms of lost taxes, increased benefits and so on.
Hospitals were told
to consider workload and manpower implications for hospital neurologists and out patient departments.
The guidance asks providers to consider the impact of providing the drug on waiting times, on consultant availability, on magnetic resonance imaging scans, on nursing and other support and, finally, on the hospital drugs budget. Couched in such a stern way, that advice clearly had an effect. In some parts of the UK, there was no access at all to beta interferon. On 10 December, I asked the Minister about the availability of beta interferon, and was told that that information was not collected centrally.
A survey was conducted by the manufacturer of the drug, Schering Pharmaceutical. It has a clear and obvious interest, but the figures it has provided to me are not necessarily tainted for that reason. The data relate to the period up to and including October 1996, almost a year after the initial guidance was issued, and just about the time that the latest and more positive advice went out from Dr. Winyard, medical director at the NHS executive.
The figures show the number of remitting-relapsing MS patients in each region and the percentage of purchasers—the health authorities—funding beta interferon in each region. In my constituency in the north-west, all health authorities make provision for beta interferon, which is good. Of course, there is a second hurdle. The consultant neurologist has to decide whether to prescribe it, but the health authorities have made a decision whether to provide the money to purchase beta interferon, so someone in Manchester with relapsing or remitting MS would be all right, but someone in Edinburgh or in Dundee would not. In Scotland, only 35 per cent. of health authorities make provision; in Wales, only 5 per cent. do so; and in the English regions, only 5 per cent. do so in the northern and Yorkshire region.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. My hon. Friend refers to North Yorkshire, but may I refer him to West Yorkshire, where I have constituents who need beta interferon?
Wakefield health authority is in financial difficulties, so, although the drug is prescribed for patients, because resources are not there, my constituents cannot receive that treatment. That is diabolical. People are suffering because of the lack of resources. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to include West Yorkshire in his diagnosis of the lack of resources in various regions.

Mr. Prentice: The Minister heard those remarks and will reply in due course. If I run through the English regions, I can put it all in perspective.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend said that the incidence of prescription among authorities in Wales was only 5 per cent. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Prentice: It is the percentage of health authorities that make a decision to allocate in their budgets for the purchase of beta interferon. Only 5 per cent. of the health authorities in Wales have done so.
The figures for England are: 5 per cent. in the Northern and Yorkshire region, with 14 health authorities; 10 per cent. in Trent; 50 per cent. in the South and West area; 56 per cent. in the Anglia and Oxford region; 80 per cent. in the North Thames area; and 92 per cent. in the South Thames region. Someone is okay if they live in Northern Ireland, because the figure there is 100 per cent., but those in the West Midlands area are in dire straits, because not a single health authority in that region has decided to purchase beta interferon.
A letter from the chief executive of the MS Society, dated 6 January, to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) says:
A year after the licensing of the product (Beta Interferon 1 B) there are still very few MS patients who are receiving the drug in the West Midlands. There seems to be a gap between policy and practice here".
There is indeed a yawning gap. As of the middle of last year, only 160 patients nationally were being prescribed beta interferon.
Mr. Cardy said in his article in The House Magazine:
It is frankly scandalous that whether you are treated for MS depends on where you live.
That must be true.
Clearly, we do not want to go through this performance each time a new drug for MS is licensed. Other drugs are coming along which are available elsewhere, but not here in the United Kingdom. The licensing procedure should guarantee the effectiveness and the efficacy of the drug in question. In the case of beta interferon, that seems to be beyond doubt. It stretches the time between relapses by up to one third, and that is what people with MS care about. It does not necessarily stop the progress of the disease towards disability, but it does influence relapses.
Dr. Winyard wrote in the letter that was circulated to health authorities in October that no date had been set for the national trial, and I would like the Minister to comment on that. Why has a national trial to assess the impact of the drug on disability been pigeonholed? That is not good enough.
There are one or two other issues that I want to highlight in the time available to me. For example, there are not enough neurologists in the country. In a debate a few weeks ago instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the Under-Secretary said that there are 260 consultant neurologists in England and Wales, and added that the number had increased by 4.3 per cent. over the past five years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): That is 4.3 per cent. in each year.

Mr. Prentice: That is magnificent news, but clearly it is not enough.
When I intervened in that debate, I referred the Minister to a study produced by the Preston NHS trust, which has a neurology unit. The document, which is hot off the press, states that, if one is unfortunate enough to live in Lancaster, it can take six months to get an appointment or a referral to a neurologist. That needs to be seriously addressed. Waiting lists at clinics are simply far too long, as the maximum time—the MS Society tells me—should be one month. I think that that is reasonable, and the Minister should comment on the fact that it has been overshot so massively.
The second key area concerns the interface between the NHS and social services and the other support systems. That issue was also covered in the debate in January on neurological conditions.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society has drawn up a draft standard of care for purchasers and providers treating people with MS. It recommends how the illness should be handled at each stage of development, from the initial diagnosis, through the moderate disability stage, to the severe disability stage, for cases that tragically progress that far. The society's suggestion is already followed for other conditions for which standards of care are prescriptive. There is a standard of care if a person is suffering from diabetes, asthma, haemophilia or eczema, but not for MS or other neurological conditions.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have been so reluctant to fund properly research into multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has spent £30 million since it was set up in the 1950s on research into the disease. It is currently spending £8 million to fund 50 research projects. What have the Government allocated? Last year, they spent £216,000, the year before £207,000, and in 1993–94 £154,000. Those are sizeable


sums of money, but they pale into insignificance when one considers the money spent by the society—a charity. The society says that it faces demands on its resources, and that it cannot be expected to carry the burden alone. It is looking for the Government to take a larger share.
I mentioned that other drugs are in the pipeline, including co-polymer 1, which was trialled in United States in 1994. It has had encouraging results. Another is cannabis. Every time I mention cannabis, my local press go berserk, as if I am being soft on drugs. However, masses of anecdotal evidence from people who suffer from MS suggests that cannabis helps them.
It was, of course, legal for cannabis to be prescribed by medically qualified doctors before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and it was prescribed in tincture form. Under section 7 of the Act, it is now unlawful for a doctor to prescribe cannabis, yet heroin can be prescribed and is used in hospitals all the time for the relief of pain. I have also found out from the Minister for Health that an active ingredient derived from cannabis—dronabinol—has recently been rescheduled and can now be used, because it has been discovered that it could treat nausea in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer.
I welcome the initiative that the Government have taken. I know that the Minister for Health has met the Multiple Sclerosis Society and is sympathetic, but more needs to be done. It need not cost a fortune to make services for people with MS seamless across the NHS and into the community. Wherever people live in the United Kingdom, they should have equal access to the treatment they need when they need it. At present, we have a national lottery, with too many losers.

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for raising this important topic. As he said, multiple sclerosis is a complex and distressing condition, which is estimated to affect more than 80,000 people in the UK, often starting in early adulthood. It places a major burden on health and social services, and, most significantly, on the individuals who suffer from it and their carers, who play such a vital role in looking after family members or friends who, sadly, are afflicted with this condition.
My ministerial colleagues and I are committed to doing all we can to help the health service alleviate the symptoms of people with multiple sclerosis, so that they can get on with their lives, because unfortunately there is as yet no cure. That is why the Government are funding—through the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health—research designed to investigate the causes of multiple sclerosis and the effectiveness of new treatments, as well as research in the two broader areas of auto-immune diseases and diseases of the central nervous system, which both underpin MS research.
With respect, the hon. Gentleman was a little churlish when he talked about the Government funding of research for MS and other related problems. In the past six years, Department of Health and Medical Research Council funding for MS has amounted to more than £2 million. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Multiple Sclerosis Society has made an application for section 64 funding,

which is being considered by the Department. I hope that it will be able to decide and make an announcement in the not too distant future. The MRC is also funding research into auto-immune diseases. We are committed to providing resources from central Government to help with that research
I applaud the work that is being done by the Multiple Sclerosis Society, both in providing information, support and advice to people with MS and their families, who need this assistance now, and in looking to the future by funding a major programme of research. Its "Manifesto for Multiple Sclerosis" highlights the critical importance of co-ordinated care and of planning services to enable funding to be used more effectively, and that is a message that I wholeheartedly support. It is relevant to all NHS services, not just to those for people with MS, and it is at the heart of the purpose of the NHS:
To secure through the resources available the greatest possible improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England.
We are gradually witnessing the emergence of new therapies for multiple sclerosis. In the past year or so, there has been particular interest in the development of the group of drugs known as beta interferons, as the hon. Gentleman said.
So far, only one beta interferon drug—a beta interferon 1b drug known as Betaferon—has been licensed for prescription in the United Kingdom. This drug received a European marketing authorisation in December 1995 and is licensed for use by certain people who suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis.
The drug is not a cure. It is not suitable for all those with MS. So far, our experience of it has been limited. However, it has been described as a "promising newcomer", and, in line with the Government's commitment to ensuring that patients receive treatments that doctors judge to be clinically necessary, it has been available under the NHS since it was licensed.

Mr. William O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Burns: I am sorry, I do not have the time to give way.
In 1995, following requests by a number of bodies that information about beta interferon would be helpful, the NHS executive issued circular EL(95)97 and clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to help the NHS plan for and manage the introduction of this new treatment. The guidance—a central framework to help the NHS reach decisions at local level—was developed with a number of key bodies, including the Association of British Neurologists, general practitioner representative bodies and the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Briefly, the guidance suggested that, because of clinical considerations—that is, because beta interferon 1b was a new treatment—to ensure that it was targeted at those people who were most likely to benefit from it and to help monitor and evaluate its effectiveness, the treatment should be prescribed only by hospital neurologists where it was judged to be clinically appropriate, and within local agreements between health authorities and hospitals.
Arrangements are in place for assessing patients and, where appropriate, prescribing treatment. More than 300 patients in England are receiving beta interferon


1b through hospitals. That includes approximately 30 patients in East Lancashire health authority, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Pendle.
I am not aware of any health authority which is refusing to purchase or prescribe beta interferon. However, as with any procedure—but particularly when the procedure is new and still relatively untested—there is no single view within the NHS about the precise circumstances in which the treatment should be available. Consequently, prescribing across the country will not necessarily follow a uniform pattern. That is consistent with the arrangements for setting priorities and reaching decisions within the NHS.
It has been suggested that the Government should spell out at a national level precisely what treatments the NHS should provide. We do not think that that would be right. No list of treatments could ever hope to accommodate the range and complexity of the different cases that individual clinicians face all the time. Such a course would be too inflexible to take account of the different needs of individual patients, and would prevent clinicians and managers from carrying out different alternative approaches that could be of benefit to patients.
The Government have, however, made it clear that health authorities should not, as a matter of principle, decide not to use any clinically effective treatment. Even when the effectiveness of a procedure is not in general judged to be high, it might be both effective and appropriate in certain circumstances for an individual patient. That message was repeated in our recent White Paper, "The National Health Service—a Service with Ambitions".
I shall deal briefly with the point about the therapeutic use of cannabis. I shall write to the hon. Member for Pendle in the next few days about the issues with which I am unable to deal because of the time. My ministerial colleagues and I are aware of, and concerned about, the distress experienced by people suffering from multiple sclerosis, and we have carefully considered the representations made to us that cannabis should be made available for medicinal use.
The therapeutic use of cannabis is a complex issue, and it may be helpful if I address some of the most important considerations. Under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis and certain other drugs are controlled, because it is in the public interest for their production, supply and possession to be either wholly unlawful, or unlawful except for the purpose of research or other special purposes; or for it to be unlawful for doctors to supply them except under licence from the Home Office. The controls imposed by the Act conform with the international restrictions covering those drugs.
We are committed to ensuring that patients receive the drugs they need to treat their clinical conditions. Before a cannabis-based medicine could be prescribed, a company seeking a licence would have to present the supporting data—which would have to demonstrate the medicine's safety, efficacy and quality—to the Medicines Control Agency, in the normal way. The MCA would then evaluate it, and, if it were able to approve it, notify the Home Office.
We understand the desire of people with multiple sclerosis to explore every avenue to seek relief. It would, however, not benefit those people if we were to disregard the procedures that have been set up to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of prescribed drugs. We have to take account of all the considerations, including the potential risks associated with short and long-term use of cannabis, and consider whether any benefits—which must have been proven scientifically—outweigh those risks. We already know that there are side effects from the use of cannabis.
We have received a wealth of anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of cannabis in treating some of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. A matter as important as people's health, however, should not be taken lightly, and hard, scientific, research-based evidence is required. The conclusions of available research are not very convincing, due to the limited scope of the projects, the use of small cohort groups, or the lack of suitable scientific methodology.
I understand that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has taken positive steps to encourage trials, by offering support to researchers. The main agency through which the Government sponsor medical research is, of course, the Medical Research Council, which is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals.
Current legislation does not prevent research into the medicinal use of cannabis, provided that a Home Office licence has been obtained for that purpose. For the purposes of a clinical trial, which involves sale or supply of medicinal products and various other specified activities, a clinical trial certificate or clinical trial certificate exemption would also have to be obtained from the Medicines Control Agency.
We are therefore not in a position to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. It is up to researchers and companies wishing to market a cannabis-based product to supply the necessary scientific evidence of its therapeutic value, if any, in the first instance. They would also have to consider the form in which cannabis could be made available for use as a medicinal product in a controlled dose. As long as we have no evidence, on the grounds that I have just outlined, it is not possible to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Pendle. I appreciate, as he will know, that I have not dealt with every issue because of the shortness of time.

Mr. William O'Brien: Hear, hear.

Mr. Burns: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman saying, "Hear, hear," because it is not his debate; I was concentrating on the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle, because I appreciate the sincerity of his concerns about those who suffer from MS. The Government are equally concerned, and we are all determined to do all we can to alleviate the suffering that they sadly have to go through.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.